A glimmer of hope appears for Desjardins members who are unable to obtain compensation for $1,000 following identity theft. Acknowledging the difficulties encountered in providing the documentary evidence required to receive the compensation, the two law firms behind the class action brought against Desjardins do not rule out taking steps to correct the situation.
Last Saturday, The duty reported the setbacks experienced by several victims of identity theft seeking compensation in the wake of the massive data leak at Desjardins. Unable to provide sufficient proof in the eyes of RicePoint, the company mandated to administer the claims, the people quoted in the article said that they had simply given up hope of ever receiving the compensation provided for under the an agreement concluded on the sidelines of the class action.
The law firms Siskinds Desmeules and Kluger Kandestin, both at the origin of the legal action brought against Desjardins, now intend to take “steps” with RicePoint to clarify the situation. “If necessary, specifies Me Karim Diallo by email, we will take the necessary measures. »
The Superior Court has the power to issue new directives if unforeseen difficulties arise in the claims process. The firms claim to have worked to make the latter “simple and effective for the members”.
Several people, however, denounced the absurdity of their situation in To have to and deplored the impossibility of obtaining precise information as to the documents required by RicePoint for their claim to be admitted.
Michèle-Janick Sauvage, for example, reports that fraudsters were able to order two credit cards in her name and without her knowledge following the data leak at Desjardins. After receiving bills for purchases she had never made and repeated threats from collection agencies demanding that she repay these sums, Ms. Sauvage was finally able to have these accounts closed.
Impossible, however, to have documentary proof certifying his misadventure. She says she knocked on the door of Equifax and the two credit card companies — only to be told, sometimes only in English, that she would not get the requested document from them.
Totally mystical and philosophical
Member Desjardins then contacted the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) and the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre. The first step allowed him to have an event number and confirmation that the SPVM would not investigate his case. The second resulted in nothingness: not even an acknowledgment of receipt.
Annoyed, she contacted RicePoint to find out how to obtain the necessary proof. “I asked what documents I had to send them to prove my identity theft, writes Ms. Sauvage at To have to. He gave me a totally mystical and philosophical answer, ie “any documents that demonstrate that your identity has been used for fraudulent purposes”. »
The duty did not obtain further information in its dealings with RicePoint. “It is not possible to provide you with a list of documents as such, because each case is unique”, replies the company by email. The company’s website, however, states that “if claimants know precisely what they need to file a claim […] the likelihood of the claim being made increases. »
A communications manager for RicePoint, based in New Jersey, referred The duty in articles 21 and 22 of appendix 5 of the administration protocol, which specify the criteria that the documents must meet in order to be admissible. The latter must prove that “the claimant’s personal information was used or modified” for the purpose of “committing a fraudulent act. »
“Fraud as a normality”
Despite his steps, The duty had difficulty knowing who a victim of identity theft should contact to obtain such proof. Questioned last Thursday, the Canada Revenue Agency still had no answer to provide a week later.
Neither Revenu Québec nor the Canadian Anti-Fraud Center were able to confirm whether or not they produced a document attesting to fraud if a victim so requested. In a 166-word response, the Canadian Bankers Association — of which Desjardins is not a member — never mentions the production of documentary evidence, stating instead that “banks examine each case of fraud separately” and that ” security is a common responsibility in which citizens have a role to play. »
Only Service Canada confirms that “following receipt of an access to information request requesting documentary evidence in the context of the class action against Desjardins, the client will be informed if a fraudulent benefit claim appears to have been filed by a third party using their personal information. The organization specifies that it has received “approximately 1,000 requests for documentary evidence in connection with the class action against Desjardins. »
For another Desjardins member, vexed by the cumbersomeness of the documentary evidence to be provided, the system in place nevertheless asks the claimants “the impossible”. Xavier Proulx explains to To have to that a fraudster ordered a Walmart credit card in his name. He sent RicePoint screenshots of his credit report where the note “confirmed fraud victim” appeared. His claim for compensation was also denied.
“I understand that creditors consider fraud as normal,” writes Mr. Proulx. The burden is transferred to the victims rather than to the creditors, who wash their hands of it. »