Blacklisting Settlement

[HardKnocks]

You know, I don't know FOR SURE I am in their database. I am going by what I have always read on here... that as soon as the case is filed/index number purchased, you go into that database. So I am going on that assumption. I have never seen any records from this company and if they did contact me, I would never have gotten it due to a couple of moves since the case.

[TenantNet]

so get to work:

http://www.fadvsaferent.com/consumer_relations/index.php

First Advantage SafeRent Consumer Relations

We are here to assist you

First Advantage SafeRent is a consumer reporting agency that assembles and evaluates consumer information and provides consumer reports to third parties for the purpose of residential screening, employment screening, and/or other purposes as permitted under federal, state, and local laws. First Advantage SafeRent's Consumer Relations Department can provide you with a copy of the information we maintain about you that may be used in determining your rental or employment eligibility.

Under the regulations of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, we may disclose information about your credit, court and/or criminal history only to potential housing providers and employers that you have authorized to access your information, or as otherwise permitted under the FCRA, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and/or other applicable laws. Upon written request, we will reinvestigate any information that we maintain which you believe is inaccurate and will correct any such information that is determined to be inaccurate or incomplete.

If you have recently been denied housing, employment, or had any other adverse action taken against you based on information provided by First Advantage SafeRent, use this Web site to locate the appropriate forms and information you need to obtain a free copy of your consumer file.

With the implementation of FACTA, the FCRA changes allow consumers to request a free file disclosure from nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies in any twelve month period.

FACTA changes also required creation of a centralized service for eligible consumers to request free annual credit file disclosures from nationwide credit bureaus. The three major nationwide credit bureaus (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) established access for consumers to this centralized service using one of the following options:
Internet: www.annualcreditreport.com
Phone: 877-322-8228 (toll-free)
Mail: Annual Credit Report Request Service
PO Box 105281
Atlanta, GA 30348-5281

If you believe that you have experienced identity theft or fraud, Consumer Relations can assist you in placing a fraud victim statement in your First Advantage SafeRent file. This will notify potential housing providers or employers that you may have been a victim of identity theft. Additional information on identity theft may be found on the Federal Trade Commission's Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse Web site at http://www.consumer.gov/idtheft.

If you believe information in your First Advantage SafeRent file is inaccurate, this Web site provides you with the forms and instructions necessary to request that we reinvestigate and/or correct any inaccuracies.

Thank you for allowing us to assist you.

[HardKnocks]

This qualifies under FACTA?! I had no idea. Lexis Nexis doesn't so I never imagined this would.

[cestmoi123]

Looks like a pretty typical class action settlement: plaintiffs get little or nothing, and the lawyers get paid.

Problem with this particular case is that the interests of the plaintiffs and those of the lawyers are quite different: plaintiffs would benefit primarily from a non-monetary resultion: expungement, but expungement doesn't pay the bills.

[Aubergine]

Originally posted by cestmoi123:
Looks like a pretty typical class action settlement: plaintiffs get little or nothing, and the lawyers get paid.

Problem with this particular case is that the interests of the plaintiffs and those of the lawyers are quite different: plaintiffs would benefit primarily from a non-monetary resultion: expungement, but expungement doesn't pay the bills.

What makes you think that a business that makes money reporting the contents of public records would agree to put itself out of business by expunging those records from its database? The lawsuit is against ONE tenant screening company, not against all of them, not against the State of New York, and not against the landlords or the landlord attorneys who brought the thousands and thousands of court proceedings involved.

Have you any idea what the federal law that this lawsuit is based on actually says?

In relevant part, the Fair Credit Reporting Act provides,

"(b) Accuracy of report
Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates."

15 USC § 1681e (b).

Very simply put, expungement of all of FAS' records of past Housing Court proceedings could never have been won in a settlement and most certainly could not have been won at trial. Nothing in the law prohibits FAS from reporting the fact that someone has been sued; the claim was chiefly that such a report, to meet the FCRA's "maximum possible accuracy" standard, should include information about the disposition of the case. So to claim that this settlement is bad because it doesn't provide for a mass expungement would be ridiculously uninformed and unfair. It's especially unfair to the plaintiffs' attorneys, who by no stretch of the imagination can be accused of selling out tenants' "right" to expungement in order to profit off the settlement. The "right" to expungement just doesn't exist.

Also remember that any tenant who doesn't want to be bound by the settlement need only send in a notice of his or her election to opt out of the settlement, and is then free to bring a completely separate lawsuit seeking expungement, money damages, or other relief. If others have particularly strong facts to base such a suit on, more power to them -- additional litigation can only increase the pressure on FAS to comply with all reasonable requests for expungement.

The reality is that litigation under consumer credit reporting laws cannot possibly solve all of the problems that make getting sued in Housing Court such a disaster for tenants. The problems are caused by a system that gives control over fulfillment of a human right and need, as basic to social and individual well-being as education, health care, or public safety, to a class of greed-driven, market-oriented private property owners. The solution is to treat housing as the human right that it is, and to overthrow the system of rule-by-landlord that we are made to believe is unchangeable.

<small>[ April 15, 2006, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: aubergine. ]</small>

[cestmoi123]

Aubergine, calm down. I wasn't criticizing the settlement for not covering full expungement. So long as the information documented is accurate, then all the service is doing is recording and making available publically available facts, so they have a strong 1st amendment claim. I don't blame plaintiff's counsel for including a monetary component to the settlement, they gotta eat.

As to the core issue here, it's basically that NYC has developed a system similar to European employment systems: if you make it almost impossible to get rid of bad tenants (or unproductive employees), then landlords naturally become much more concerned about being very selective in who they take on as tenants.

As to housing being a human right, there we fundamentally differ - a landlord/tenant relationship is a vendor/customer relationship - no more, no less. If I don't like how my landlord does things, or think he wants too much for his product, I decline to continue to be a customer. If he decides he'd prefer to no longer have me as a customer once our contract expires, that's his call, I would never presume to second-guess him.

[HardKnocks]

The problem is that this whole "blacklist" thing is totally one-sided. Anyone who is accused is presumed guilty. The tenant remains blacklisted even if the LL was 100% in the wrong. No matter what happened in the case--who filed it, who won or lost, what the outcome was--the tenant is the one with the permament black mark... EVEN IF WE WON.

[Concourse]

I agree.

The only practical solution, to be frank, is continued and costly litigation to drive these blacklists out of business.

So I'd not worry too much about the monetary aspects of this settlement or whether or not the lawyers made a killing. Good. Too bad they didn't come away with even MORE money. The only solution is suing and more suing and more suing.

Drive up their costs. Make it so it is too expensive for them to stay in business.

<small>[ April 16, 2006, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Concourse ]</small>

[Aubergine]

So what is going to be the legal basis for a lawsuit that either (1) stops a business from accurately reporting the contents of public judicial records, or (2) imposes damages for doing so? All that the reporting agencies have to do to stay within the law is provide accurate reports. The problem is with the decisions that are made based on the public information those reports contain, not with the intermediaries who provide easy access to it.

At the end of the day, you are still have to go begging to the lords of the land for a place to live. The agencies are not the problem; even the courts are not the problem. The problem is that the lords, by virtue of their sacred property rights, are allowed to retaliate against any tenant who has dared to challenge another lord's authority by withholding monthly payments of tribute, or who have otherwise been the subject of another lord's wrath. Those are the rules our lords demand we live by, and going after reporting agencies does nothing to change them.

[Concourse]

Beats me. I work for an industry (I'd rather not say which one) that is sued all the time, driving a bunch of companies out of business. Why should these blacklisting companies be allowed to exist without the burdensome cost of litigation?

[starfish11040]

cestmoi123,

You say:
"As to the core issue here, it's basically that NYC has developed a system similar to European employment systems: if you make it almost impossible to get rid of bad tenants (or unproductive employees), then landlords naturally become much more concerned about being very selective in who they take on as tenants.

As to housing being a human right, there we fundamentally differ - a landlord/tenant relationship is a vendor/customer relationship"

You're right, the landlord/tenant relationship is a vendor/customer relationship - that is, in the world outside of New York City. NYC rent-regulation DOES deem housing to be a human right, and it often backfires on tenants as your analysis suggests. Making it almost impossible to get rid of bad tenants not only makes landlords very selective in who they take on as tenants, it makes life miserable for tenants who have to endure a noisy or filthy or even criminal neighbor because the eviction process is so uniquely arduous.

<small>[ April 17, 2006, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: JohnV ]</small>

[GumbyTenant]

Did anyone get the verification by mail ? I have been dragged to housing court twice in the required time frame and never got the form. I will get from website. The second time LL dragged me to court not only was it without merit, but the LL attorney had the nerve to not even show up at the adjournment date of Part D. The LL attorney had called up the court to withdraw the case while I was actually sitting in the courtroom waiting for him to show up (ARGGGGHH!!). Judge Wendt wrote "discontinued by petitioner" on the court folder. Discontinued is not the same as DISMISSED. That's why these computer records suck. As for giving FAR the last 4 digits of the social security number?? WHY?? why cant they just require the court case index number?? I think being blacklisted is worth more than 100 bucks, but I will gladly take the money.

[NYHawk]

Gumby: look at CPLR 3217[a] for the rules about the right of a litigant to voluntarily discontinue a case. Basically, there are three options: none of which permits a phone call discontinuance. Also, if you had put in an answer, or 20 days had passed since the Petition had been served, the LL's right to unilaterally discontinue the proceeding was automatically cut off. In that event, the LL could only discontinue with either your written permission (a stipulation) or a judge's written permission ( a court order). A note on the file jacket by a judge is not the equivalent of a court order. Only a court order is appealable. Sounds like the wheels of justice turned too fast for you. Apparently, neither the LL's atty and/or the judge were concerned/aware about the blacklisting consequences of you having been sued in housing court. I think, unfortunately, the judge was probably only concerned with quickly eliminating a case from the pile he had to deal with that day. (Why should you care if a LL wants to drop a case?? is the usual mentality I suspect.)

I don't know anything about the blacklisting settlement, other than what is on the web page, but seems to me a discontinuance should be the equivalent of a dismissal for whatever implications either might have on blacklisting. IMHO

[GumbyTenant]

Reply to NYHawk, I did file an answer and more than 30 days had passed since the petition was filed. I think the judge did write "discontinued by petioner" as an order because next to it on the folder there is a space that says "So ordered" and the judge put his initials. I never got to speak to the judge, the court officer told me about the phone call when I asked her if the LL attorney had signed in yet. She let me zerox the folder/file cover because I asked if I could get proof the case was discontinued. The court computer says DISC for the last entry on the case history. I felt stupid because waited there for 50 minutes before discovering what was going on. Outside the courtroom there is a list of cases and mine was still on it.

[Aubergine]

Originally posted by NYHawk:
A note on the file jacket by a judge is not the equivalent of a court order. Only a court order is appealable.

Recognizing that the requirement in CPLR 2219 (a) that an "order shall be in writing" is often violated in practice, the rule was amended in 1996 to provide,

"Except in a town or village court or where otherwise provided by law, upon the request of any party, an order or ruling made by a judge, whether upon written or oral application or sua sponte, shall be reduced to writing or otherwise recorded."

This provision was intended to facilitate an appeal of an order made informally, such as in a conference. The time to appeal an order runs from the service of a notice of entry (CPLR 5513), and the formal steps of entering the order and serving a notice of entry are only possible with a written order.