After 7 years it disappears from your credit report. Depending on where you are, it can become legally unenforceable as early as two years. In your situation, I believe it's six or seven... not sure on Ontario laws.

SOL is how long they have to sue you... it stands for statute of limitations. Why did they send you a letter if they can't collect? Because they're a collection agency... and you might get scared and pay it.

One more question Ranzzz, what does SOL mean? O.k. so maybe two; if a bill is unpaid for 7 years or more they can't take you to court or collect? If that is true why did they send me a letter? Thanks.

Thanks for the advice Razz. What do I say when they call me?

Apparently it's more than 7 years old. Since SOL is expired and it won't show up on your credit report anymore. Just leave it alone and forget about it.

Hi, I received a letter about a bank overdraft in 2001, from a collection agency. Do I have to pay this? If I don't have to pay it because of the statue of limitations, are there any other reprecusions I might face? I want to buy a house in a couple of years and am very worried about this affecting my credit rating.
Also, what do I say to them when they call me, since I phoned them, they have my phone number and are sure to harrass me.

Any advice would be very appreciated. I'm a single mother with 3 kids and no financia(or other)l support from my ex-husband.

Ha...
I had a closer look at Dave Ramsey's site, as I saw his group on Facebook.com

I think that's the direction I'm going to take this site.

Along with the discussion forum, people love to listen to podcasts and watch videos... I think that this will be the future of this site.

Hey girlygirl...
I'm starting to write my new ebook...
Collection Agency Kung Fu - For Canadians..

I'll let everybody know when it's published.

Don't know if Raymond has ever mentioned him. He's American, and I came across him on the Vancouver site, but it seems quite interesting.
www.daveramsey.com
http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/cms/index.cfm?intContentID=6557.

Does anyone know of Canadian stuff like this? Other than here??

The internet and blogs and discussion forums are all about opinions in a public place.

It's a fundamental right , freedom of expression, etc to be able to discuss and talk about what you want.

As long as you're expressing your opinion, you're well within the law.

If a person such as Deanna Natale sends out letters to 10,000 Canadians who are subsequently upset and need some place to vent about a factual event, I can't see the problem with that.

It just goes to show that the internet is very public and DOES have an effect on business, politics etc.

The blogs in the U.S. are much stronger and more influential than this blog could ever be.

I heard that the White House have actually got "Blog Advisors".

These are people who scour the blogs looking for political discussion. They MUST keep their eye on things. Some of the American blogs get hundreds of thousands of visitors per month.
These are very powerful political blogs.

Although nothing to do "per se" with the theme of this forum, the article in today's Toronto Star newspaper should be noted by all blog participants as potentially redefining what may legally constitute character defamation. Though the success of the lawsuit initially appears to be highly improbable, with the host of wacky stuff we see coming out of Canadian courts, nothing should surprise us.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/208639]

LAWSUITS PUT ONLINE FREE SPEECH AT RISK

Apr 30, 2007 04:30 AM

Michael Geist

Despite garnering only limited media attention, two recently filed defamation lawsuits in British Columbia have the potential to reshape free speech on the Internet in Canada. The suits pit Wayne Crookes, a B.C.-based businessman, against a who's who of the Internet, including Yahoo!, MySpace and Wikipedia. Those companies are accused of defaming Crookes not by virtue of anything they have said, but rather by permitting their users to post or link to articles that are allegedly defamatory.

Crookes, who was involved with the Green Party of Canada, was unhappy with a series of Internet postings that he argues paint him as disreputable and as a bully. In response, he filed lawsuits against the posters. (Personal disclosure: Crookes previously demanded that I remove two comments posted on my personal blog by visitors to the site.)

The lawsuits target a handful of individuals who are said to have written the postings, including a Toronto-based librarian, a Cambridge-based engineer and several anonymous posters whose identities are unknown.

Had the lawsuits stopped there, they would not be particularly significant. Lawsuits alleging defamation are not unusual and the cases would likely have resulted in settlement discussions or full trials examining the merits of the claims.

The lawsuits could prove to be critically important to the Internet in Canada, however, because they cast the net of liability far wider than just the initial posters. Indeed, the lawsuits seek to hold accountable sites and services that host the articles, feature comments about the articles, include hyperlinks to the articles, fail to actively monitor their content to ensure that allegedly defamatory articles are not reposted after being removed, and even those that implement the domain name registrations of sites that host the articles.

The common link with all of these targets is that none are directly responsible for alleged defamation. Rather, the Crookes lawsuits maintain that Internet intermediaries should be held equally responsible for such content.

For example, one lawsuit argues that Yahoo! refused to shut down an offending site ? a Green Party of Canada chat board ? and therefore libelled Crookes. Similarly, MySpace is targeted both for its failure to shut down a personal page that contained allegedly defamatory content as well as for its refusal to remove a link to OpenPolitics.ca, a site that the suit claims hosted defamatory content (Crookes has also sued OpenPolitics.ca).

The inclusion of Wikipedia in the lawsuit extends the circle of liability even further. According to the statement of claim, an article about Crookes appeared on three occasions in Wikipedia. In each instance, Crookes asked Wikimedia, the company that maintains the popular online encyclopedia, to remove the article. In each instance, it complied with the request.

Despite taking down the content, Wikimedia has now been sued for failing to "monitor its website to ensure that the libels of [Crookes] did not reappear on its website." Moreover, the suit also seeks to hold it liable for refusing to remove an article on online journalism that contains a hyperlink to an article about Crookes.

The broadest extension of liability in the lawsuit involves the inclusion of a U.S.-based service called Domains By Proxy. The company, which allows individuals to protect their privacy by anonymously registering domain names, is being sued for refusing to divulge the identity of the registrant of a website that contained an article about Crookes. The lawsuit argues that the domain name registration service has "accepted responsibility for the actions of the owner of the website."

While it will fall to a judge to determine whether the articles and postings are indeed defamatory, the inclusion of such a broad range of Internet intermediaries could have a significant chilling effect on free speech in Canada.

If successful, the suits would effectively require websites ? including anyone who permits comments on a blog or includes links to other sites ? to proactively monitor and remove content that may raise liability concerns. They will also call into question the ability of domain name registrants to guard their privacy by refusing to publicly disclose their identities.

In response, it is likely that many sites will simply drop the ability to post comments, since the challenge of monitoring and verifying every comment will be too onerous.

Alternatively, many sites may abandon Canada altogether by establishing their online presence in the United States. Courts in the U.S. have repeatedly denied attempts to hold intermediaries liable for content posted by third parties on the grounds that a 1996 statute provided them with immunity for such postings.

Canada would do well to introduce a similar provision, since the consequences for defamatory speech should rest with those directly responsible, not mere bystanders with deep pockets.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.ca.

Addendum: Another fabulous video - Sorry, I couldn't resist. [I'm just glad, really glad, this guy didn't choose to become a collection agent.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahl8pnyjGFw

Ray