BootieShakinBlonde Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 Situation: 24 year old granddaughter, applying for tenancy at apartment complex run by Capital Property Management (Oregon). Mildly bruised credit, no rental history, challenged to get approved without strong cosigner. 67 year old grandmother, cosigner. Credit score of 806, impeccable assets, no blemishes what-so-ever.Capital Property management collects $45 applicant and $25 cosigner fee. We submit the forms that authorizes permission to Pacific Screening to run a typical tenant screening. Two days later, the application is denied, and REAL PAGE, Inc. (which is not Pacific Screening as we authorized) runs the bureaus and tenant screening. They did not have authorization of any form to run the bureaus, check out the application, and make recommendations to Capital Property Management.What remedies do I have? I believe this is a violation of the FCRA. What would you do? It is inexcusable for a property management firm to pull this big NO NO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amerikaner83 Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 When DF and i moved into our apartment....it was managed by one company, but another ran our credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moneedshelp Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 It might be the policy of the company to have its agent (Real) complete the screening. Don't really see a violation, but JMHOIf you are still interested in the apt., I would contact the apt manager and see what is going on, why you were denied. good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myscoresawful Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 I agree, it doesn't appear to be any type of violation, it could be something as simply as the agency's parent company's name or such.I also agree that you need to find out what grounds they denied you/your granddaughter the apartment. If it was your report, you have the right to know, if it was her report, she has the right to know.One thing to remember is that it may not have had anything to do with your credit. It could have been your income, (and I don't know you and do not mean to imply that you do not have a high income, but I know that my mother is retired, and she doesn't have enough income to co sign for anything, bless her heart). Let's say your granddaughter had to sign a one year agreement, and that her rent is $500.00 a month. Reasonably, you would have to have enough income to pay ALL OF YOUR monthly bills, PLUS the additional $500.00 a month for the next year. If your income to debt ratio would not provide for this, then it could have been denied for that reason, legitimately.If that is the case, the agency should simply have told your granddaughter that she needed to request the assistance of a different co signer.On a different note, if for some reason there was something in your granddaughters credit report that was the reason for her being denied, then they would have to inform her of this, but not you.After working in property managemen for awhile, I have come to the conclusion that if you can qualify for most apartments, you can qualify for a home loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BootieShakinBlonde Posted January 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 Grandmother has more than enough income to swing 5 times the rent.The issue at hand is Real Page's violation of the FCRA. They were NEVER authorized to run the credit/criminal etc checks. Hence the unauthorized screening. Pacific Screening was authorized and has verified they did not screen the application and has no affiliation with Real Page.Quoting from the FCRA "A person who obtains a credit report without proper authorization, or an employee of a credit reporting agency who gives a credit report to unauthorized persons may be fined up to $5,000 or imprisoned for one year or both.The FCRA limits the disclosure of consumer credit reports only to entities with specified "permissible purposes" and under specified conditions. Any person who knowingly and willfully obtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses shall be fined under Title 18 of the United States Code or imprisoned not more than two years or both.Any suggestions from all you sharpies as how to proceed for the violations of the FCRA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amerikaner83 Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 you know how this is going to play, right?They'll claim they had PP, after all, how did they get your info? You will claim they don't, make them prove they do. They'll dredge up some obscure piece of paper that ID's a business relationship of some sort with Real Page. You do know FCRA violations are penalized on ACTUAL damages right? Statutory damages are "up to" a certain amount....I guess I'm not quite getting the gung-ho "get my money" attitude I'm receiving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jq26 Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 You have to have a private right of action to sue under a statute. Is there language in the FCRA that states that you have the right to recover from the party that pulled your credit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTigggers Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Get a copy of the paperwork that you signed.When you signed the forms that authorizes permission to Pacific Screening to run a typical tenant screening it probably said somewhere about using said source to run credit history on you. This happens often. My employer did this with me.Every year they would run credit and driver history on us. When I saw a strange name on my CR I questioned it turns out on that paper I signed it said (in fine print of course) that they would run my credit thru a 3rd party of their choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moneedshelp Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 I think the real issue will be proving that Real did not have a PP. If the company acknowledged no connection, did they explain how Real became involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methuss Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 You're missing the point. You gave the property management company permission to check credit. They can use any service they see fit to accomplish that. your permission was to the property manager, not to any specific service they were to hire.Sorry but you don't have a wooden leg to stand on with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BootieShakinBlonde Posted January 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 First off, I want to thank all of you kind people for your input.However, I did make a copy of the paperwork prior to filling it out for some odd reason. It is an exclusive "permissible permission" only to Pacific Screening and no one else.It seems that the property management company had just switched over to Real Page screening service. We were told that Pacific Screening Service was their only service, hence the forms we signed. Also, they seem to have a brand new leasing agent in this position that obviously is not aware of the serious nature of this problem. Pacific Screening happens to be here in Portland, and they verified that the property management company had not run these applications, and due to the problem at hand, is "EARMARKING" their account to not run their applications.Any other additional comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CleverCynic Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 ...and make recommendations to Capital Property Management.Is this the basis of your argument? I would doubt the named company in the inquiry even saw the info. They were just billed that way for the pull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jq26 Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 The transaction was with the rental agency. Their form is incorrect. It clearly needed to be updated. So the rental company, which you gave permission to pull your credit, used company B instead of company A. You are asking this company to be slapped for what amounts to a typo. Were you harmed by this typo?This is not a case of a company pulling your credit without permission and poisoning your scores (or 'spying' on you). I think its a HUGE uphill battle. And if this is to settle the score for the denial, probably best to let it go and move on. Not worth the time and effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amerikaner83 Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 yup. Bona fide error is a real defense, even for PP. It's a slap on the wrist, and that's a big IF that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methuss Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 I think its a HUGE uphill battle. And if this is to settle the score for the denial, probably best to let it go and move on. Not worth the time and effort.Agreed. If you (the OP) doubt those of us that are "Pros" here, ask a lawyer. The initial consultation is usually free. Ask several if you like. I seriously doubt you will get an answer different from what we have already said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BootieShakinBlonde Posted January 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 First off let me thank you all so much for your advice. I know that you all are at the top of your league, and very much appreciate all your comments.Sure the denial was a let down. However she has another apartment in place.My greatest irritation with all of this is:Now she is on Real Page's national database for her issues. I have been working hard to help her clean up her issues since first visiting this site. This is what is frosting my "BOOTIE":lol: This is what I would like them to reverse more than anything. Hence the thought of hitting them in the pocketbook to get them to drop her information out of their system.What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flacorps Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 The data doesn't belong to them. It belongs to CRAs, and perhaps Lexis/Nexis and/or Choicepoint (the latter two largely aggregate public records of one sort or another). Or it's public record data.In the former case they have no right to retain it. If it gets cleaned up, they'll see that the next time they look.In the latter case it's anybody's for the taking at any time. If it's later sealed or expunged but it lingers in their system in its former form ... they would be liable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amerikaner83 Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Yup - fla is absolutely correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts