Blacklisting redux

[Anna]

another NYTimes article on the very real danger of being in Housing Court:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/garden/08TURF.html

[HardKnocks]

Anna, any idea how tenants can check and correct these reports (like our credit reports)? There are plenty of us out here who have been wrongly dragged into housing court.

My case involved being "evicted" two months after I moved out. I broke my lease but I paid to have a broker find a new tenant, which he did before I even moved out. The landlord lost nothing.

Two months later I get a legal letter--forwarded to me from the old address, at which the landlord was already collecting rent from another tenant--saying I was being hit with a non-payment and I was being "evicted." A few days later the summons arrived, again forwarded by the post office. (Not only was the case invalid, so was the service.)

I answered the notice in person, said I didn't live there anymore but someone else did. It was STILL accepted into housing court. I appeared on the court date and the landlord's lawyer listened to what I had to say and made a phone call. He came back and said the case was being "discontinued," as long as I didn't try to get my security back. (?) I thought it was over. Then I found out that "discontinued" isn't the same as "dismissed." Nobody, including the judge, told me that.

I found later that this case should never even have been in housing court. Yet there it sits on my record. And there's nothing I can do??

PS: The landlord's lawyer, by the way... Borah, Goldstein, et al.

<small>[ April 09, 2004, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Bleary-eyed tenant ]</small>

[HardKnocks]

Oh, I had told my landlord the first week of March that I had to break my lease and would be vacating May 1st. Plenty of notice, and they did not object. The broker had a new tenant April 14th (my security covered the month of April, so actually he made a bit of a profit). I moved out April 22nd.

Basically I was living there from when I gave notice on March 9th to when I moved out April 22nd. They had all that time to either object or give me some sort of notice in person. Nothing. They waited until June... after a new tenant had already moved in and was paying rent.

My point is that this case was absolutely ridiculous, and I don't see why it should count against me just because it happened. If anything, the landlord and his attorneys should be penalized for wasting everyone's time.

Do we have ANY recourse?!

[Anna]

click search
type blacklist
search 'All Open Forums"
read the articles, emails, posts, links
contact atty who filed class-action.

[Anna]

Online 'Blacklisting' Draws Ire

Dee McAree
The National Law Journal
04-23-2004

The era of the Internet and endless databases has produced a budding phenomenon: blacklisting. And that is leading to a not-so-new phenomenon: lawsuits.

Until last month, doctors could log on to a now defunct Texas-based Web site to check the litigation history of patients. Companies like Registry SafeRent and First American Registry provide a similar service to landlords nationwide, reporting whether a potential tenant has a prior history of eviction proceedings.

The idea of "blacklisted" patients and tenants has generated criticism and even class actions.

Plaintiffs lawyers say there is a problem in the trend toward landlords and doctors using reporting services to weed out litigious renters and patients to minimize their risks of being sued. But lawyers defending the services say their clients do not "blacklist" anyone: They merely report what is openly available in public court records.

The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) controls companies engaged in collecting and selling consumer reports. The statute requires that the reported information is accurate and complete, and that a remedy is available for those who seek to dispute the information.

"Without FCRA, gathering and disbursement of this type of extremely personal information would violate the privacy laws of all the states," said Dallas solo practitioner Stephen Gardner.

Gardner and a handful of other lawyers were preparing to file suit against Doctorsknowus.com, the first consumer reporting service for doctors, before it folded amid criticism on March 9.

For a membership fee of $4.95, doctors could perform up to 250 name searches to find plaintiffs, their lawyers and expert witnesses in malpractice lawsuits in Texas and other states. The lawyers preparing to sue contended that the site was illegal because it did not have procedures in place for consumers to get copies to challenge the information.

Similar allegations are the crux of two class actions filed against companies that sell tenant reports to landlords. One was filed under state law in California, Decker v. U.D. Registry, No. 01 CC-07725 (Orange Co., Calif., Super. Ct. 2001), and the other in federal court in New York. Both lawsuits allege that the companies report inaccurate information and do not have parameters in place to protect consumers.

Charles Newman of the St. Louis office of Bryan Cave is defending American First Registry in the federal class action, White v. First American Registry, No. 1611-04 (S.D.N.Y.).

Newman asserted that his client is in compliance with FCRA, and serves the legitimate needs of landlords who have a right, and a duty, to screen potential tenants. "My client doesn't black mark anyone," Newman said. "It just reports what is in the public record."

Newman argues that First American was not inaccurate in reporting that the plaintiff, Adam White, had been involved in housing litigation in 1996. It amended the report promptly, at the written request of White. Ironically, however, White's case still appears as an active file in the housing court's automated phone system.

His lawyer, James Fishman of Fishman & Neil in New York, said there ought to be a sign on the courthouse door that says, "Warning: Use of these facilities could be hazardous to your ability to secure housing in the future."

Tenants are unfairly disadvantaged for having been sued by a landlord, despite the fact that there may be a number of good reasons why a tenant might withhold rent, Fishman said.

The housing reports contain cursory docket information that was not intended for mass market, he adds. The companies buy the information in bulk, whereas the average person would only be allowed to see five case files at a time.

"One solution is for the court to simply make housing court records available on the same basis that they are made available to any individual," said Fishman.

But Newman said that the very notion violates the tenets of an open court system. "Lots of companies for legitimate business reasons want access and should have access to that information."

Plaintiffs lawyers assert that most consumers would prefer not to give them access. "Consumers do not want this information given out," said Gardner.

"Not because it is good, bad or indifferent. But because it is private."

[HardKnocks]

Anna, to the best of your knowledge, do tenants have any access to this database? Seems the only way we can find out what info is in our file is to be turned down for housing and ask why. Then there is apparently no way to correct or clarify the info. How can this be legal? Your landlord can sue you for no reason, or for retaliation, he can lose, and it STILL ends up going against YOU?! No matter WHAT?! Surely I'm missing something. No other legal area works like this--that even if you're exonerated or it's proven that the accuser had no basis for suing you--it remains as a stain on your record just because they accused you at all. With this, you're guilty even when proven innocent.

I wouldn't mind this thing nearly as much if it was run like credit reports. We should be able to view and make corrections to our file at any time. Is Jamie Fishman working on that?

[MikeW]

If a LL turns down a potential tenant, I know of no requirement that they tell them why. The only way to force the LL to release this information would be to sue the LL, and bring it out in discovery. Of course, by doing that, the tenant would guarantee that they'd be in the database.

[Anna]

Federal law requires LLs to inform tenants when a negative report is issued by these tenant-screening services. Here's one of several articles posted from 10/03 on blacklisting.

October 12, 2003
When a Screening Report Errs
By THE NEW YORK TIMES

A tenant screening report is a type of credit report, under provisions of the 1970 Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

"So if the landlord denies tenancy based on the report," said Chris Hoofnagle, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, "the landlord must provide the tenant with what is called an adverse action notice," which informs the tenant of his or her right to contact the screening company, review the entire contents of the report and to correct inaccuracies, at no cost.

"If the company does not correct those errors, it can be liable for suit," Mr. Hoofnagle said. "And the landlord can be legally liable if he doesn't provide the adverse action notice."

Beth Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, said that after interviewing a number of tenants, "I've concluded that many landlords are not complying with this law."

James B. Fishman, a partner in the Manhattan law firm of Fishman & Neil, said the New York State Fair Credit Reporting Act "is even more important than the federal one because it expressly includes an apartment rental as a type of credit transaction that is covered by the statute."

"That reflects the policy of this state that the rental of housing is at least as important as applying for a credit card," Mr. Fishman said, "and it specifically empowers tenant applicants to discover precisely what is being reported about them and to correct inaccuracies."