Hang on there. You misunderstood me. While provincial consumer reporting legislation allows debts to be reported for 7 years from the date of last payment or collection, the credit bureaus have an internal policy of 6 years from the date of "FIRST DELINQUENCY." with respect to their "trade" sections.

You can see from the top of page 8 of the same link I just sent the last guy

http://www.fcac-acfc.gc.ca/eng/publications/CreditReportScore/PDF/CreditReportScore_e.pdf

that the credit bureaus' policy is to report from the date that account payments FIRST went into default - NOT when you last paid a stinking collector. So if you make a payment on a card after it's been delinquent for 5 years, that doesn't mean that it is supposed to stay on your report for another 6.

However, what happens in practice, is that the collection agency really couldn't care less and punches in the last payment date or date of last activity as being when they received a collection from you. That's the date which is often fed into the credit bureau's database and so that's what has to be disputed. Again, that's why I tell people to keep their old billing statements.

Ray

Thanks Ray,

In point of fact it was his equifax report, but I'm sure his TU one appears similar. He asked me to look it over as I've been learning my way around credit reports while repairing my own.

I don't think he has legitimate cause to dispute the entries, he does admit to owing the money, and he's now giving great thought to paying it off and taking another 6 year hit or ignoring it for three years waiting for it to go away (the debts ARE stats barred).

My friend wants to make good on the debts (it's only about $2,000 total), but doesn't want to wear the debts on his report for a further six years.

I suggested he either a) pay the original creditor and then dispute the collection entries with the bureaus (and suck up having the bad trade lines for 6 years) or b) negotiate a pay for delete with the collections people as the debts are stats barred (not sure if they do that up here), normal cautionary stuff followed (send money orders not cheques, get EVERYTHING in PLAIN ENGLISH in WRITING and don't pay a dime until you have a commitment from them in writing).

I thought the advice was ok, if I've given him some bad counsel I'd appreciate someone chiming in.

You are probably referring to his TransUnion Report. The same account may be displayed under the "Trade" section as well as the "Collections" section. Under the trade section itself, the same account may have more than one entry. Sometimes someone loses his credit card and a new one with a different number is reissued. Or a bad account may get sold off and be transferred to collections in which case, it might appear under the (1) original creditor's name, (2) the new account collector's name, and (3) under the "Collections" section If the person got sued, the same item would appear yet one more time under the 'Public Records" as a judgment.

The possibilities are endless. Better to call them up @ 1-800 663-9980 in Hamilton and straghten out any errors. Believe me, even though they act professional, many of their reports contain as many errors as accurate facts. It can be quite an arduous process straightening it all out.

Beware also, TransUnion is now outsourcing many of their calls to India. You may end up getting some Punjabi at 3 o'clock in the morning. If that's the case, ask to be tranferred back to Canada. If he refuses, try speaking French, Somali, Tamil or one of our official languages or calling back. Tell him you'll say hello for him to all his buddies at Pomer and Boccia before you hang up.

Ray

I have a friend who's credit report is an absolute nightmare at first glance, three collections accounts and two R9 "skip" accounts. A closer inspection shows that two of the collections accounts and one of the R9 trade lines are the same account.

Is this permitted? It seems that this is unfairly punitive as the same negative entry is showing as three bad items on the report.

This gave me pause, as I wondered if it was permissable to show both a collection account and an R9 trade line as it's effectively showing one item twice.

Any suggestions or comments welcomed.