Comments on: CCAP: SCREENING TOOL UNDER ATTACK, AGAIN! http://petriestocking.com/blog/2009/06/25/ccap-screening-tool-under-attack-again/ Tristan's Landlord - Tenant Law Blog Thu, 16 May 2013 22:40:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: background checksrentalfree http://petriestocking.com/blog/2009/06/25/ccap-screening-tool-under-attack-again/comment-page-1/#comment-1967 background checksrentalfree Sat, 11 Feb 2012 05:46:09 +0000 http://petriestocking.com/blog/?p=70#comment-1967 <strong>background checksrentalfree...</strong> [...]CCAP: SCREENING TOOL UNDER ATTACK, AGAIN! | Tristan's Landlord - Tenant Law Blog[...]... background checksrentalfree…

[...]CCAP: SCREENING TOOL UNDER ATTACK, AGAIN! | Tristan's Landlord – Tenant Law Blog[...]…

]]> By: Nancy http://petriestocking.com/blog/2009/06/25/ccap-screening-tool-under-attack-again/comment-page-1/#comment-982 Nancy Sat, 15 Jan 2011 19:49:46 +0000 http://petriestocking.com/blog/?p=70#comment-982 I, for one, would do absolutely anything to have 2 restraining orders removed from my record that were dismissed by the court. They were filed by the same guy who was in fact the one stalking me, i.e., hiding in the bushes across the street from my house, leaving threatening messages, and even (this he finally was arrested for) smashing glass and plastic items and some furniture into smithereens on my open porch while I was not home. Thank goodness the neighbors called the cops! ANYONE can file a civil charge against another individual and like the disclaimer says on the website "no inference should be taken from this". However, it puts enough doubt into (forget about renters for a second) a potential employer's mind that you may be mentally unstable. The ironic thing is that this person that did this to me wrote me letter upon letter telling me his step by step plan on how he planned to ruin my life. He wasn't successful at most things except this and making me live in fear. The justice system proclaims innocent until proven guilty, then why must cases that have been dismissed be accessible to the open public??? All I want is a professional job, as I once had, without prejudice taken against me...I am planning to write letters to all my representatives concerning this. If you agree please tell me your story. I, for one, would do absolutely anything to have 2 restraining orders removed from my record that were dismissed by the court. They were filed by the same guy who was in fact the one stalking me, i.e., hiding in the bushes across the street from my house, leaving threatening messages, and even (this he finally was arrested for) smashing glass and plastic items and some furniture into smithereens on my open porch while I was not home. Thank goodness the neighbors called the cops! ANYONE can file a civil charge against another individual and like the disclaimer says on the website “no inference should be taken from this”. However, it puts enough doubt into (forget about renters for a second) a potential employer’s mind that you may be mentally unstable. The ironic thing is that this person that did this to me wrote me letter upon letter telling me his step by step plan on how he planned to ruin my life. He wasn’t successful at most things except this and making me live in fear. The justice system proclaims innocent until proven guilty, then why must cases that have been dismissed be accessible to the open public??? All I want is a professional job, as I once had, without prejudice taken against me…I am planning to write letters to all my representatives concerning this. If you agree please tell me your story.

]]> By: Tristan http://petriestocking.com/blog/2009/06/25/ccap-screening-tool-under-attack-again/comment-page-1/#comment-11 Tristan Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:09:09 +0000 http://petriestocking.com/blog/?p=70#comment-11 John - Thanks for adding your comment to this post - I appreciate it. I agree with you on your first two points. But I don't agree with your last comment regarding cases not being listed until the case is concluded. Specifically, I don't understand what is wrong with landlords making screening decisions on pending or dismissed charges. Most landlords do not file an eviction against a tenant without a valid reason as they will have to pay the costs of the filing fee and service fee out of pocket. If the eviction was dismissed, more times than not this is becasue of a technical violation (landlord filled out the notice incorrectly or had it served incorrectly) by a unsuspecting landlord not becasue the tenant didn't actually owe rent. The same can be said of many criminal charges. I used to do some criminal defense work in my early years as a lawyer and I cannot tell you how many times Domestic Violence battery charges were dismissed against defendants solely because the victim did not show up for trial. It was a bit of a game for the defendant who often contacted the victim (despite having a court ordered no contact order in place) to make sure that she didn't appear in court. These defendants, who I represented at the time, would tell me to my face not to worry as the victim was not showing up. After this occurred to me 10-15 times I stopped taking DV-battery cases. Once again, I realize I may sound jaded but I guess I have just seen too much and realize that lots of cases (both civil and criminal) are plea bargained out or dismissed via a stipulation. Until convicted criminals, arrested individuals, and/or individuals that have previously been evicted become protected classes landlords are not discriminating against them. As for not putting pending charges on CCAP -- why not? It doens't mean that the defendant was evicted or found to be guilty - I think most people understand that. But since individuals who have been sued for eviction but not technically evicted,or individuals that have been arrested and charged with a crime are not members of a protected class, landlords should be allowed to deny them rental in my opinion. I appreciate your adding to the discussion on this topic which I know many landlords (and non-landlords alike) are concerned about. John – Thanks for adding your comment to this post – I appreciate it. I agree with you on your first two points. But I don’t agree with your last comment regarding cases not being listed until the case is concluded. Specifically, I don’t understand what is wrong with landlords making screening decisions on pending or dismissed charges.

Most landlords do not file an eviction against a tenant without a valid reason as they will have to pay the costs of the filing fee and service fee out of pocket. If the eviction was dismissed, more times than not this is becasue of a technical violation (landlord filled out the notice incorrectly or had it served incorrectly) by a unsuspecting landlord not becasue the tenant didn’t actually owe rent.

The same can be said of many criminal charges. I used to do some criminal defense work in my early years as a lawyer and I cannot tell you how many times Domestic Violence battery charges were dismissed against defendants solely because the victim did not show up for trial. It was a bit of a game for the defendant who often contacted the victim (despite having a court ordered no contact order in place) to make sure that she didn’t appear in court. These defendants, who I represented at the time, would tell me to my face not to worry as the victim was not showing up. After this occurred to me 10-15 times I stopped taking DV-battery cases.

Once again, I realize I may sound jaded but I guess I have just seen too much and realize that lots of cases (both civil and criminal) are plea bargained out or dismissed via a stipulation.

Until convicted criminals, arrested individuals, and/or individuals that have previously been evicted become protected classes landlords are not discriminating against them.

As for not putting pending charges on CCAP — why not? It doens’t mean that the defendant was evicted or found to be guilty – I think most people understand that. But since individuals who have been sued for eviction but not technically evicted,or individuals that have been arrested and charged with a crime are not members of a protected class, landlords should be allowed to deny them rental in my opinion.

I appreciate your adding to the discussion on this topic which I know many landlords (and non-landlords alike) are concerned about.

]]> By: Admin http://petriestocking.com/blog/2009/06/25/ccap-screening-tool-under-attack-again/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Admin Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:24:07 +0000 http://petriestocking.com/blog/?p=70#comment-10 Dr Rent's Thoughts on CCAP Attack written by John H Fischer, June 30, 2009 I know that as a Landlord, I may be in the minority, but here are my thoughts on this new proposal. On the $10 fee, CCAP actually saves taxpayer money by not bugging Court Staff for this info, so in essense since I am a taxpayer, I "gave at the office" As far as no fee for "registering" as a user with a record of searches done... I actually don't have a problem with that. If you request the records in person, they normally have your info. Also, if you are going to look up bankruptcies in the federal courts using the PACER system, you have to log in. As far as notifying tenants if you used CCAP as part of the reason for denial, again I don't have a problem. I already do this. Mistaken identity can happen (there are 77 listings in CCAP under my name, triple that number if you leave out my middle initial). Actually, one could argue that landlords are already required to do this because it would not be that big of stretch for a tenant lawyer to claim that CCAP falls under the FCRA. On the issue of things not being listed until the case is concluded, I am truly torn. The landlord in me thinks that's a really bad idea. However, that part of me who teaches classes on the proper use of CCAP records thinks that there is a legitimate problem that needs to be somehow addressed with some landlords making decisions based on pending or dismissed charges. Dr Rent’s Thoughts on CCAP Attack
written by John H Fischer, June 30, 2009
I know that as a Landlord, I may be in the minority, but here are my thoughts on this new proposal.

On the $10 fee, CCAP actually saves taxpayer money by not bugging Court Staff for this info, so in essense since I am a taxpayer, I “gave at the office”

As far as no fee for “registering” as a user with a record of searches done… I actually don’t have a problem with that. If you request the records in person, they normally have your info. Also, if you are going to look up bankruptcies in the federal courts using the PACER system, you have to log in.

As far as notifying tenants if you used CCAP as part of the reason for denial, again I don’t have a problem. I already do this. Mistaken identity can happen (there are 77 listings in CCAP under my name, triple that number if you leave out my middle initial). Actually, one could argue that landlords are already required to do this because it would not be that big of stretch for a tenant lawyer to claim that CCAP falls under the FCRA.

On the issue of things not being listed until the case is concluded, I am truly torn. The landlord in me thinks that’s a really bad idea. However, that part of me who teaches classes on the proper use of CCAP records thinks that there is a legitimate problem that needs to be somehow addressed with some landlords making decisions based on pending or dismissed charges.

]]>