- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Enio Zeppieri is a crooked lawyer!
Enio Zeppieri is a liar!
Enio Zeppieri is a con artist!
Enio Zeppieri is untrustworthy!
Enio Zeppieri lies to Judges!
Enio Zeppieri obstuct's justice!
Enio Zeppieri should be disbarred!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I CAN PROVE ENIO ZEPPIERI IS A VERY BAD LAWYER AND THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA IS PROTECTING HIM & OTHERS!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gregory Gryguc lied to Justice Matlow, Justice Swinton and Justice Murray. Gregory Gryguc witnessed myself and my wife sign the settlement offer on December 18th 2003 butpart of Enio Zeppieri's conspiracy (He says this did not happen.) He lies!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pearl Rombis of Dutton Brock LLP (formerly Zeppieri & Associates LLP) suddenly appeared (March 2002) about 3 months before the discoveries and disappeared 1 month after discoveries (July 2002), all without warning. Enio Zeppieri abandons the discoveries stating “it was not necessary that he should go” just 4 days before discoveries and leaves the newly hired, Pearl Rombis, to falsely defend justice and the truth against the negligent corporations, Scotiabank and Equifax and all the negligent lead and junior lawyers, and apparently including mine. She did not ask many/nearly all of the important questions and all my witnesses (independent and not) were never called to testify therefore sabotaging the discoveries via Enio Zeppieri’s scheme.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Enio Zeppieri's mortgage fraud halted me from communicating with him for about 3 months because this was the 2nd mistrust I now had with Enio Zeppieri. I was finally persuaded by Rose Serino to accept an appointment with Enio Zeppieri in December 2002 and that is when he introduced me to Avril Hasselfield stating that she would be taking over the case. I reluctantly accepted and complained to her about her taking over the case, Enio Zeppieri, Rose Serino and Theresa Hamid and about Pearl Rombis. Avril Hasselfield disappeared without warning, about 7 months later and after 2 or 3 meetings with her and without Enio Zeppieri.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Enio Zeppieri introduced Lora Olsthoorn to me on the morning of pre-trial (October 17th 2003). Enio Zeppieri stated that Lora Olsthoorn would be helping my case and seeing it through the trial. On the morning of the 1st day of trial, Lora Olsthoorn calls me at home and says she was sick and she will miss the first day but will attend on the 2nd day, Tuesday December 16th 2003. Lora Olsthoorn never returned to the trial and I was never allowed to speak to Lora Olsthoorn again. Rose Serino would not allow me to speak Lora Olsthoorn or Enio Zeppieri. Lora Olsthoorn eventually left the corruption of Enio Zeppieri & Associates LLP, too.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Martin Sclisizzi tampered evidence and submitted it to the courts. Martin Sclisizzi conspired with Enio Zeppieri, Martin Buhler and Stephen Schwartz to cover-up the history of Scotiabank's negligences.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Martin Buhler of Sugden McFee & Roos LLP, formerly Borden Ladner Gervais LLP joined the conspiracy of Enio Zeppieri with dozens of secret communications between them and Martin Sclisizzi and Stephen Schwartz. The lawyers schemed to cover-up the history of Scotiabank's and Equifax's negligences and defamations and discriminations I endured. Enio Zeppieri would not give me a copy of the 80+ communications!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Elissa Goodman of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP carried on the conspiracy to cover-up Scotiabank's negligences in hearings after the trial. Martin Sclisizzi would not appear in hearings that labelled him as a co-conspirator among the lawyers to hide the truth?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stephen Schwartz tampered transcripts and submitted it to the courts. Stephen Schwartz conspired with Enio Zeppieri, Martin Buhler and Martin Sclisizzi to cover-up the history of Equifax's negligences.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jack Rosati knowingly signed Enio Zeppieri's fraudulent document. Enio Zeppieri set this meeting up with Jack Rosati and gave us a limited time to take, sign and return the documents from Jack Rosati. Jack Rosati was told about Enio Zeppieri's fraud.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heidi Rubin of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP lied to Master Graham.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Harry McMurtry of Affleck, Greene & McMurtry LLP lied to Justice Archibald. Harry McMurtry tried to make me look bad and look like a liar when it was Harry McMurtry that failed to follow the Rules of Procedure, so he makes up a lie about his failure to Justice Archibald, and Justice Archibald allows his slandering untruth!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sean Dewart of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP lied to Justice O'Marra. Justice O'Marra caught Sean Dewart in a huge untruth and Justice O'Marra "Did Nothing!" Are lawyers allowed to lie to Superior Court for Ontario Judges without reprimand by the judge?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ron Palleschi filed a lawsuit using word trickery disguising the true litigant he represents. We now know that Ron Palleschi was aiding in the disguise of Enio Zeppieri's sister-in-law, Toby Ezer, the litigant in the 2nd mortgage funds fraudulently schemed and then misappropriated by Enio Zeppieri, Theresa Hamid and Rose Serino of Zeppieri & Associates.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On August 2nd 2007, Hershel Gross of the Law Society of Upper Canada (Manager) admitted to me 3 times on 2 seperate phone calls that LSUC had made mistakes! He later recinded those admissions but it is the truth. The LSUC is covering up the multiple negligences of the many lawyers and from the investigating LSUC staff.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Saturday, September 25, 2004
THE WRONG MAN:
THE WRONG MAN:
Sandra E. Martin - September 25, 2004 National Post Article
Credit rating nightmare drives Ontario man to the brink. National Post Saturday, September 25, 2004 Page: IN1: Financial Post Byline: Sandra E. Martin Source: Financial Post Banking is a recurring nightmare for Robert Clark. For more than a decade, the Ajax, Ont., man has been paying the price for bad debts rung up by another individual he has never met, but who bears a very similar name.
On several occasions over the past 10 years, the other man's financial foul-ups were mistakenly recorded on Mr. Clark's credit record. As a result of the false information, he says he is continually turned down for credit.
Mr. Clark has taken the matter all the way to an Ontario court, which, in June of this year, agreed that Scotiabank and Equifax Canada Inc., one of two major credit bureaus in the country (TransUnion Canada is the other), had not taken "reasonable care" with his credit information.
The problem first came to light in 1994 -- on Jan. 18 to be exact: Mr. Clark, a computer programmer, has kept very precise records. On that date, he applied for a loan at Royal Bank, and was denied. When he asked why, he says, "I discovered there was an I-9 on my credit report, which is bad debt, which is walking away from a debt.
"I-9 and R-9 are the worst possible credit ratings a consumer can receive, and they red-flag people with complete non-payment of outstanding debt. "I" indicates installment debt, such as a mortgage or standard car loan, while "R" stands for revolving debt, such as a credit-card balance.
Mr. Clark knew the rating had to be a mistake, as, except for "three late payments since 1986," he says his credit history has been clean.
So he immediately did exactly what you're supposed to do when you discover an error on your credit report: He notified the credit bureau in question, Equifax Canada Inc., which confirmed they had made a mistake and wiped the I-9 rating from his record.
That was supposed to be the end of the story. Except it wasn't. It wasn't even close. Again and again, financial transgressions perpetrated by the other man were recorded on Mr. Clark's record, in Mr. Clark's name.
In all, he says he has documented around 100 credit-reporting errors since 1994 -- some minor, such as the amount owing on an outstanding credit balance, and some major, including additional bad-debt ratings that resulted in loan applications being turned down in 1998 and 2000.
Speaking on behalf of Equifax Canada Inc., company president Rick Cleary says he is not at liberty to discuss this particular case. But he does own that errors regularly creep into consumers' credit reports -- that, in fact, the occurrence of errors is inevitable.
No matter how good computer programs [used to maintain consumer information] are, when you're dealing with tens of millions of files... there is the opportunity for the wrong thing to go into the wrong file," he says. "There can be confused files.
"Equifax does not keep statistics on credit report errors, Mr. Cleary says. Besides, even if they did track the errors they'd been alerted to, that number would likely be a gross underestimation of how many actually occur, since, according to a recent survey by MasterCard Canada and Decima Research, only 37% of Canadians have ever clapped eyes on their personal credit reports.
That shocking stat aside, Mr. Cleary contends the "great preponderance" of misinformation in Equifax credit records is of the ilk of out-of-date or incorrect addresses and employment information.
"That type of information we do not actively update," he says. Rather, the credit bureau relies on financial institutions to input that data when a consumer applies for credit.
However, the errors that kept cropping up on Mr. Clark's credit report were more than merely annoying. Some were serious enough to disrupt his professional and private lives.
"It's 10 years of living hell," he says. "You think it, you dream it, and you can't escape it. You're scared of your own name.
"The last straw was being refused for a $10,000 business loan, and even a $1,000 personal line of credit from CIBC in September, 2000. He suspected right away that the other man had been up to his old bad-money habits again, and that the fallout had landed on Mr. Clark's own credit report.
"I grabbed the [computer] screen from [the customer service rep at the bank] and said, 'You've got to show me,'" he recalls.
Mr. Clark isn't proud of his outburst, but it turns out he was right. After that incident, he spent much of fall of 2000 corresponding with the credit bureau, but felt he was getting nowhere. The constant frustration and money worries triggered a nervous breakdown.
"I went nuts," he admits. "I went crazy. My wife left me."Mr. Clark underwent therapy and anger management counselling, but he doubted it would be possible to regain control of his emotions until the recurring credit nightmare came to an end. So in December, 2000, he initiated a lawsuit against Equifax Canada and Scotiabank, which he learned was also responsible for misfiling the other man's information on his credit report.
The case was heard in an Ontario court last December, and in June of this year, a verdict was handed down in Mr. Clark's favour.
But the victory was hollow.
The court did find Equifax Canada and Scotiabank at fault for what The Lawyers Weekly described as "distress and intrusion on his financial integrity," and awarded Mr. Clark $5,000 from each defendant.
However, his lawyer had argued for punitive damages, plus the reimbursement of his legal fees, which Mr. Clark was not awarded. He figures he is out $85,000 since initiating the proceedings. Mr. Clark is appealing the case, and is due back in court next month.
Meanwhile, he and his wife, Roxane, with whom he is reunited, say they are close to bankruptcy."We're such little people, and we're losing at this game," says Ms. Clark, a hair stylist.
For consumers like the Clarks, fighting large institutions in court is an uphill battle, agrees Scott Estill, a Denver-based former IRS attorney who is now in private practice, and the author of Tax This! An Insider's Guide to Standing Up to the IRS (Self-Counsel Press).
"The biggest problem is the money discrepancy," he notes. "The one thing [large institutions] have is pretty much unlimited resources," whereas an individual may have only a few thousand dollars in savings to fund his or her legal case. "You can be out of pocket five figures real quick, without having any assurance that you're going to succeed.
"Mr. Cleary contends that only on "very, very rare" occasions is a credit reporting error serious enough to end up in court. He says for most consumers, the best defence against errors is to look over their credit reports from both major bureaus about once a year, as well as prior to any major expenditure, such as buying a house or a car. (You can get your credit report free of charge within about 10 days by mail; same-day service is available online for around $15.)
That's a cop-out, according to Margaret Johnson, founder of Solutions Credit Counselling Service in Surrey, B.C. She points out that credit bureaus have a provincially legislated duty to provide "accurate and up-to-date information" on consumers' credit reports.
Ms. Johnson has her doubts about the effectiveness of the current credit reporting system, and hopes they will be supported by research being conducted now by the Ottawa-based Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC). The non-profit, pro-consumer organization is looking into how well consumers are served by Canadian credit bureaus, and will release a report on its findings in 2005.
As for Mr. Clark, his saga is far from over. Awaiting the hearing of his appeal in a few weeks, he makes note of yet another error on his credit report that might be comical if the gravity of his financial situation didn't have him so close to tears.
On the most recent "correction" of his file, Equifax has erroneously noted his name as "Robert Clark, Jr.
Robert and Roxane Clark have been dealing with a bad credit rating since 1994, when another individual's financial transgressions were mistakenly mixed in with Robert Clark's records.
Sandra E. Martin - September 25, 2004 National Post Article
Credit rating nightmare drives Ontario man to the brink. National Post Saturday, September 25, 2004 Page: IN1: Financial Post Byline: Sandra E. Martin Source: Financial Post Banking is a recurring nightmare for Robert Clark. For more than a decade, the Ajax, Ont., man has been paying the price for bad debts rung up by another individual he has never met, but who bears a very similar name.
On several occasions over the past 10 years, the other man's financial foul-ups were mistakenly recorded on Mr. Clark's credit record. As a result of the false information, he says he is continually turned down for credit.
Mr. Clark has taken the matter all the way to an Ontario court, which, in June of this year, agreed that Scotiabank and Equifax Canada Inc., one of two major credit bureaus in the country (TransUnion Canada is the other), had not taken "reasonable care" with his credit information.
The problem first came to light in 1994 -- on Jan. 18 to be exact: Mr. Clark, a computer programmer, has kept very precise records. On that date, he applied for a loan at Royal Bank, and was denied. When he asked why, he says, "I discovered there was an I-9 on my credit report, which is bad debt, which is walking away from a debt.
"I-9 and R-9 are the worst possible credit ratings a consumer can receive, and they red-flag people with complete non-payment of outstanding debt. "I" indicates installment debt, such as a mortgage or standard car loan, while "R" stands for revolving debt, such as a credit-card balance.
Mr. Clark knew the rating had to be a mistake, as, except for "three late payments since 1986," he says his credit history has been clean.
So he immediately did exactly what you're supposed to do when you discover an error on your credit report: He notified the credit bureau in question, Equifax Canada Inc., which confirmed they had made a mistake and wiped the I-9 rating from his record.
That was supposed to be the end of the story. Except it wasn't. It wasn't even close. Again and again, financial transgressions perpetrated by the other man were recorded on Mr. Clark's record, in Mr. Clark's name.
In all, he says he has documented around 100 credit-reporting errors since 1994 -- some minor, such as the amount owing on an outstanding credit balance, and some major, including additional bad-debt ratings that resulted in loan applications being turned down in 1998 and 2000.
Speaking on behalf of Equifax Canada Inc., company president Rick Cleary says he is not at liberty to discuss this particular case. But he does own that errors regularly creep into consumers' credit reports -- that, in fact, the occurrence of errors is inevitable.
No matter how good computer programs [used to maintain consumer information] are, when you're dealing with tens of millions of files... there is the opportunity for the wrong thing to go into the wrong file," he says. "There can be confused files.
"Equifax does not keep statistics on credit report errors, Mr. Cleary says. Besides, even if they did track the errors they'd been alerted to, that number would likely be a gross underestimation of how many actually occur, since, according to a recent survey by MasterCard Canada and Decima Research, only 37% of Canadians have ever clapped eyes on their personal credit reports.
That shocking stat aside, Mr. Cleary contends the "great preponderance" of misinformation in Equifax credit records is of the ilk of out-of-date or incorrect addresses and employment information.
"That type of information we do not actively update," he says. Rather, the credit bureau relies on financial institutions to input that data when a consumer applies for credit.
However, the errors that kept cropping up on Mr. Clark's credit report were more than merely annoying. Some were serious enough to disrupt his professional and private lives.
"It's 10 years of living hell," he says. "You think it, you dream it, and you can't escape it. You're scared of your own name.
"The last straw was being refused for a $10,000 business loan, and even a $1,000 personal line of credit from CIBC in September, 2000. He suspected right away that the other man had been up to his old bad-money habits again, and that the fallout had landed on Mr. Clark's own credit report.
"I grabbed the [computer] screen from [the customer service rep at the bank] and said, 'You've got to show me,'" he recalls.
Mr. Clark isn't proud of his outburst, but it turns out he was right. After that incident, he spent much of fall of 2000 corresponding with the credit bureau, but felt he was getting nowhere. The constant frustration and money worries triggered a nervous breakdown.
"I went nuts," he admits. "I went crazy. My wife left me."Mr. Clark underwent therapy and anger management counselling, but he doubted it would be possible to regain control of his emotions until the recurring credit nightmare came to an end. So in December, 2000, he initiated a lawsuit against Equifax Canada and Scotiabank, which he learned was also responsible for misfiling the other man's information on his credit report.
The case was heard in an Ontario court last December, and in June of this year, a verdict was handed down in Mr. Clark's favour.
But the victory was hollow.
The court did find Equifax Canada and Scotiabank at fault for what The Lawyers Weekly described as "distress and intrusion on his financial integrity," and awarded Mr. Clark $5,000 from each defendant.
However, his lawyer had argued for punitive damages, plus the reimbursement of his legal fees, which Mr. Clark was not awarded. He figures he is out $85,000 since initiating the proceedings. Mr. Clark is appealing the case, and is due back in court next month.
Meanwhile, he and his wife, Roxane, with whom he is reunited, say they are close to bankruptcy."We're such little people, and we're losing at this game," says Ms. Clark, a hair stylist.
For consumers like the Clarks, fighting large institutions in court is an uphill battle, agrees Scott Estill, a Denver-based former IRS attorney who is now in private practice, and the author of Tax This! An Insider's Guide to Standing Up to the IRS (Self-Counsel Press).
"The biggest problem is the money discrepancy," he notes. "The one thing [large institutions] have is pretty much unlimited resources," whereas an individual may have only a few thousand dollars in savings to fund his or her legal case. "You can be out of pocket five figures real quick, without having any assurance that you're going to succeed.
"Mr. Cleary contends that only on "very, very rare" occasions is a credit reporting error serious enough to end up in court. He says for most consumers, the best defence against errors is to look over their credit reports from both major bureaus about once a year, as well as prior to any major expenditure, such as buying a house or a car. (You can get your credit report free of charge within about 10 days by mail; same-day service is available online for around $15.)
That's a cop-out, according to Margaret Johnson, founder of Solutions Credit Counselling Service in Surrey, B.C. She points out that credit bureaus have a provincially legislated duty to provide "accurate and up-to-date information" on consumers' credit reports.
Ms. Johnson has her doubts about the effectiveness of the current credit reporting system, and hopes they will be supported by research being conducted now by the Ottawa-based Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC). The non-profit, pro-consumer organization is looking into how well consumers are served by Canadian credit bureaus, and will release a report on its findings in 2005.
As for Mr. Clark, his saga is far from over. Awaiting the hearing of his appeal in a few weeks, he makes note of yet another error on his credit report that might be comical if the gravity of his financial situation didn't have him so close to tears.
On the most recent "correction" of his file, Equifax has erroneously noted his name as "Robert Clark, Jr.
Robert and Roxane Clark have been dealing with a bad credit rating since 1994, when another individual's financial transgressions were mistakenly mixed in with Robert Clark's records.
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Ruling will spur credit agencies to fix errors quickly
Ruling will spur credit agencies to fix errors quickly
BOB AARON
An Ontario court has given a strong incentive for banks and credit reporting agencies to act faster and more efficiently when a consumer brings attention to an error in his credit report.
In January 1994, Robert Neil Clark applied for a personal loan with the Royal Bank of Canada. He learned that he had an R-9 credit rating, dated 1993, due to unpaid retail debt he allegedly owed to the Bank of Nova Scotia. (R-9 and I-9 are the worst possible ratings in a credit report.)
Clark then contacted Equifax Canada Inc., a national credit reporting agency that reports information provided to it by its members. He was assured of an investigation and correction in case of an error.
From 1994 to 2000, he had difficulties obtaining credit. In the course of eventually receiving all the loan approvals, various banks often told him of the R-9 entry on his report.
He also reported repeated communications with both Scotiabank and Equifax over this matter. Finally, in 2000, Equifax confirmed that the delinquent loan was not against Clark, but another person with a similar first and last name but a different middle name.
Clark sued Scotiabank, which reported the R-9 rating in the first place, and Equifax, on the grounds that the continuing misrepresentation of his credit had affected his life and that he had suffered serious depression as a result. He argued that the Scotiabank and Equifax were negligent in their duties and were liable for his psychological problems.
In June, Justice Gerald F. Day of the Ontario Superior Court ruled in favour of Clark. Quoting an earlier Ontario court decision, he wrote that if credit-reporting agencies are negligent in gathering and reporting information, and if their report is inaccurate, their actions could cause creditors to either deny credit or charge more than usual.
Pointing to the importance of credit and credit ratings in our society, he said credit reporters had to be accurate, skilled and diligent.
Justice Day ruled that Scotiabank and Equifax failed to take reasonable care with Clark's credit rating. Equifax did nothing for many years, he wrote.
Scotiabank admitted its failure, and although Equifax could not be blamed for supplying information provided by the bank, it could be faulted for not responding to the plaintiff's repeated requests for clarification over several years.
Clark claimed damages for distress and loss of financial reputation as a result of the actions of Scotiabank and Equifax, but was unable to prove actual monetary loss. Instead, the judge awarded him $5,000 against each defendant for intrusion on the financial integrity he is entitled to enjoy.
The Clark case, one hopes, will serve as a strong incentive for financial institutions and credit reporting agencies to be more responsive when consumers ask for corrections to their credit history.
Those with correct but poor credit ratings, however, should be aware that the only sure way to improve a rating is to work with creditors to show that payment habits have improved. Non-profit credit counselling services are available to help borrowers control their debts and solve financial problems permanently.
These services are available through member agencies of the Ontario Association of Credit Counselling Services at 1-888-746-3328, or at http://www.indebt.org.
Ontario's Ministry of Consumer and Business Services says consumers should be wary of companies with advertisements on the lines of: Credit problems? No problem! Or, Erase bad credit � guaranteed.
Credit repair companies may charge as much as $1,000 but do not improve the clients' credit rating. In fact, no one can legally remove accurate and timely negative information from a credit report.
Under changes made to Ontario's Consumer Reporting Act in December, 2000, it is now illegal for credit repairers to accept advance payment, or to charge a fee at all, unless their services demonstrably improve the consumer's credit file.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Aaron is a Toronto real estate lawyer. He can be reached by e-mail at bob@aaron.ca, phone 416-364-9366 or fax 416-364-3818. Visit http://www.aaron.ca
Additional articles by Bob Aaron
Canada Student Debt .ca
BOB AARON
An Ontario court has given a strong incentive for banks and credit reporting agencies to act faster and more efficiently when a consumer brings attention to an error in his credit report.
In January 1994, Robert Neil Clark applied for a personal loan with the Royal Bank of Canada. He learned that he had an R-9 credit rating, dated 1993, due to unpaid retail debt he allegedly owed to the Bank of Nova Scotia. (R-9 and I-9 are the worst possible ratings in a credit report.)
Clark then contacted Equifax Canada Inc., a national credit reporting agency that reports information provided to it by its members. He was assured of an investigation and correction in case of an error.
From 1994 to 2000, he had difficulties obtaining credit. In the course of eventually receiving all the loan approvals, various banks often told him of the R-9 entry on his report.
He also reported repeated communications with both Scotiabank and Equifax over this matter. Finally, in 2000, Equifax confirmed that the delinquent loan was not against Clark, but another person with a similar first and last name but a different middle name.
Clark sued Scotiabank, which reported the R-9 rating in the first place, and Equifax, on the grounds that the continuing misrepresentation of his credit had affected his life and that he had suffered serious depression as a result. He argued that the Scotiabank and Equifax were negligent in their duties and were liable for his psychological problems.
In June, Justice Gerald F. Day of the Ontario Superior Court ruled in favour of Clark. Quoting an earlier Ontario court decision, he wrote that if credit-reporting agencies are negligent in gathering and reporting information, and if their report is inaccurate, their actions could cause creditors to either deny credit or charge more than usual.
Pointing to the importance of credit and credit ratings in our society, he said credit reporters had to be accurate, skilled and diligent.
Justice Day ruled that Scotiabank and Equifax failed to take reasonable care with Clark's credit rating. Equifax did nothing for many years, he wrote.
Scotiabank admitted its failure, and although Equifax could not be blamed for supplying information provided by the bank, it could be faulted for not responding to the plaintiff's repeated requests for clarification over several years.
Clark claimed damages for distress and loss of financial reputation as a result of the actions of Scotiabank and Equifax, but was unable to prove actual monetary loss. Instead, the judge awarded him $5,000 against each defendant for intrusion on the financial integrity he is entitled to enjoy.
The Clark case, one hopes, will serve as a strong incentive for financial institutions and credit reporting agencies to be more responsive when consumers ask for corrections to their credit history.
Those with correct but poor credit ratings, however, should be aware that the only sure way to improve a rating is to work with creditors to show that payment habits have improved. Non-profit credit counselling services are available to help borrowers control their debts and solve financial problems permanently.
These services are available through member agencies of the Ontario Association of Credit Counselling Services at 1-888-746-3328, or at http://www.indebt.org.
Ontario's Ministry of Consumer and Business Services says consumers should be wary of companies with advertisements on the lines of: Credit problems? No problem! Or, Erase bad credit � guaranteed.
Credit repair companies may charge as much as $1,000 but do not improve the clients' credit rating. In fact, no one can legally remove accurate and timely negative information from a credit report.
Under changes made to Ontario's Consumer Reporting Act in December, 2000, it is now illegal for credit repairers to accept advance payment, or to charge a fee at all, unless their services demonstrably improve the consumer's credit file.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Aaron is a Toronto real estate lawyer. He can be reached by e-mail at bob@aaron.ca, phone 416-364-9366 or fax 416-364-3818. Visit http://www.aaron.ca
Additional articles by Bob Aaron
Canada Student Debt .ca
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)