Posted by PA_Notary_II on 5/19/09 7:27pm
Msg #289191

UNBELIEVABLE... I'm done with these folks....

Dear TransContinental Title Signing Professional:

We are experiencing a drastic increase in the number of our large lender customers requiring a signing agent who has submitted to and passed the National Notary Association (NNA) Background Check. These lenders are responding to instructions from federal banking regulators as they implement mandates of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act and its Interagency Guidelines. The measures were specifically designed to protect consumer privacy which remains a highly critical concern for all of First American and our customers. Simply stated, the NNA Background Check allows one standard for this information that is applicable nationwide. As a result, effective July 1st, 2009 we will require that all active signing professionals in our database submit to and pass the NNA Background Check.


All arrangements need to be made with the NNA directly for the NNA Background Check process. The NNA can be reached at www.nationalnotary.org or 1-800-876-6827. Upon completion of the NNA Background check, the NNA will notify TransContinental Title directly. WE DO NOT REQUIRE ANY RESPONSE OR INFORMATION IN ORDER TO UPDATE YOUR PROFILE WITH THIS NNA BACKGROUND CHECK INFORMATION. In order to comply with this requirement, the background check must be done through the NNA; other background reports are not acceptable as the elements are not the same as those found in the NNA report. All incurred expenses for this NNA Background Check are the responsibility of the signing agent and are not billable to TransContinental Title, First American or its affiliates. Unfortunately, failure to comply with this requirement by July 1st, 2009 will result in your removal from our data until such time as you complete the requirement.

We sincerely hope that you will support and assist us in this matter to better protect our customers and industry.


Sincerely,



TransContinental Title

Vendor Relations

1-866-688-8659

[e-mail address]

Reply by David Kruss on 5/19/09 7:39pm
Msg #289194

UNBELIEVABLE... I'm done with these folks....

I guess that means that ALL of their employees will have also completed a NNA background check at their personal, non-reimbursed expense or they are to be terminated. When that happens I might consider it.

Reply by oldhippie_IL on 5/19/09 8:22pm
Msg #289197

I had a back ground check completed, but NOT with the NNA. Trans just lost my happy face!

Reply by Claudine Osborne on 5/19/09 8:56pm
Msg #289202

When I received mine from this site TC told me that they would accept it..I haven't heard from them since! How many more will start going this way??

This angers me that we have to submit to the NNA screening or start loosing business. First Fiserv now TC who will be next? The one I have is much more detailed, take a look at my profile!

How many signing agents will not comply..sadly how many more will dish out more money??

Reply by Lee/AR on 5/19/09 9:02pm
Msg #289204

How many more? Just the sheeple. You know, the ones who follow the judas goat--right up until their throat is slit.

Reply by Claudine Osborne on 5/19/09 9:11pm
Msg #289209

How about we do something?? Email or letter writing campaign?? But where and to whom do we complain to? Does anyone have any ideas??

Reply by Briana M. Boyer on 5/20/09 10:57am
Msg #289291

UNBELIEVABLE... I'm done with these folks....

This entire process is in violation of so many employment rights. If an employer or potential employer is hiring you for a job, they have reason to "check into" your past ONLY as it relates to the job they are hiring you for. The Graham Leach Bliley Act has to do with protecting the public’s private financial information when conducting financial transactions. However, the NNA background check is intrusive and ALL-inclusive. For instance, if you have had any charges on your record ever, I MEAN ANYTHING, you will NOT pass that background check. Furthermore, if you don’t pass, they wont tell you why you didn't, so you have no way to repudiate the findings! I was part of a class action lawsuit against the NNA and the servicing company crooks that performed these so called "checks" because they had reported poorly investigated denials that caused many people to loose their jobs. The law requires that you have the right to review your personal information sent to a 3rd party, but these people don’t consistently do that. They were found to have made so many mistakes on people’s reports a class action was necessary. Identities were miss-matched, people were accused of committing crimes they hadn't; it has been a real mess. Still, even throughout all of this, they continue using these services!

The only way we can combat this is to all refuse to submit to this bogus background check.

Reply by Lee/AR on 5/20/09 11:37am
Msg #289297

UNBELIEVABLE... Read Briana's post. Eye-opener, for sure! n/m

Reply by Linda Hubbell on 5/19/09 8:59pm
Msg #289203

Scroll down and see how many more of us feel about it.. n/m

Reply by PAW on 5/19/09 9:13pm
Msg #289210

Report this to the US Department of Justice

Report them to the Department of Justice - Anti-trust Division. File a complaint on their website at:

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm

There was (and may be still is) an investigation into price fixing and other anti-trust issues in the signing agent field. And with the NNA in particular. Of course, you can't find out if the investigation is still on going or if ended, if it was fruitful. But it certainly won't hurt to alert the DOJ (and FTC) about the tactics that are rearing their ugly head from title companies such as TCT.

Reply by Stamper_WI on 5/19/09 9:20pm
Msg #289212

Don't assume everyone else is doing it

It doesn't take long. Its your livelihood and principles

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/19/09 9:30pm
Msg #289214

DONE!! n/m

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/19/09 9:33pm
Msg #289215

Re: DONE!! phooey....<G>..posted too quick

Sent an e-mail...we'll see what happens.

Reply by Lee/AR on 5/19/09 10:08pm
Msg #289227

Re: DONE!! Took 5 minutes. Do it! Now. n/m

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/19/09 10:13pm
Msg #289229

I DID!! STOP YELLIN' AT ME!!...<G> n/m

Reply by MichiganAl on 5/20/09 12:04am
Msg #289243

Re: Report this to the US Department of Justice

My thoughts exactly. That letter sounds like it was practically written by the NNA.

Reply by John Schenk on 5/19/09 9:21pm
Msg #289213

Yep, I got that email today too.

TransCon is a big customer of mine. I personally think this is BS, but I MAY actually pay to have this done, grudgingly. I get $175 for every closing with edocs, and that's the only way I get them from them. They're usually not a bad set of docs, although the CountryWide loans can run up to about 186 pages, but they have cut the faxback to about 15 pages now for me. MIC closings used to have HUGE faxbacks, as did CountryWide, but that's down to a page now. Still significant docs to print, but I don't mind that when the faxback is cut down to 15 pages or less when they pay me $175 in my office, or in the city within which I live, and pay me extra to go out of town.

I may actually have to do this for them. They're a good client, and I don't want to lose them. I'm in a fairly lowly populated area, compared to most folks on here, so I am able to demand a higher fee. When a client is paying a nice fee for closings, it may be worth it to do this. Can't think of any other client I would do it for, but I may just have to cave in on this one. They "might" continue to use me, as they have in the past, or they "might" call a SA that is in compliance with their new rules.

FASS did that to me, and I think everyone, back in the fall of last year. Never did it...said I wouldn't do it...but I kinda regret that now as they were giving me about 6-8 closings a month. They're using me again now, even though I haven't done anything to comply with their requests LOL, but I definitely lost some work there that I would have had over the last 5 months.

I GUESS the QUESTION IS...if you have a client that is going to require this, and that is a GOOD client, do you want to loose those good fees...one of the highest paying fees you get, for half of a year? Somebody that calls you once every 3 months it's a no brainer! I have probably turned down 15 closings in May from TCT so far that I just couldn't do. They will probably keep calling me, BUT they are going to call the agent that is NNA Background checked first. I don't do signings full time so IS that a good thing for me, or a BAD thing? I'm their FIRST choice, in my area...they have told me that in the past. Don't really wanna do it, but I probably will. Everyone has to make their own choice.

I haven't paid to have a background check done anywhere, so it IS going to have to be certified by someone at some time...and I believe the law requires it and we'll ALL have to do it, and many of you have already done it.

Make your own choice. I'm gonna see what I have to do to get the NNA Background check done. Looked at it years ago..don't remember what the fee is...but it's a business expense I can write off.

Best of luck to all!

JJ

Reply by PAW on 5/19/09 9:34pm
Msg #289216

No law

>>> ... and I believe the law requires it and we'll ALL have to do it ... <<<

I don't believe there exists any 'law' that requires us to have a completed background check as signing agents. Heck, our job doesn't even have a real title or job description, much less having statutes regulating us. (The GLBA does not require background checks of employees or consultants or contractors to be in compliance.)

Granted, there may be some policies and procedures in place with lenders and/or title companies that may require anyone associated with the process to have a background check completed.

Reply by Lee/AR on 5/19/09 10:40pm
Msg #289237

Re: No law--you are so right!

The only thing I have found is that a 'bank' may institute a procedure, tho' it is NOT required that they do so. However, it is reasonable that if a 'bank' wants to institute procedures for 3rd party vendors (that's us...and the co. that stuffs their envelopes, too) then they'd better be prepared to require it of ALL 3rd party vendors--and their own employees.

What really is ludicrous is that even the busiest NSA has so little information of this nature compared to the dumpsters full of personal files that have made the news in recent months. We are not the problem--not even close.

Reply by Stamper_WI on 5/20/09 6:58am
Msg #289257

Re: No law--you are so right!

The "Law" I am referring to is standardization of notary law. Not signing agent. Many states, like WI, automatically adopt what ever the UC code is. An example is required education before receiving commission, mandatory use of a journal, no criminal backkground etc. Thought that was clear in my first post.

For more information on that, go to http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/ulona/2009feb_meeting.htm

Reply by Stamper_WI on 5/20/09 7:02am
Msg #289259

Wrong thread n/m

Reply by Claudine Osborne on 5/19/09 9:36pm
Msg #289217

John, If the NNA offered just the screening that would be ok. But we have to be memebers, take their course, pay for NSA lisitn and then pay again for the screening. This is a few hundred dollars..I hear what you are saying too..We must all decide what we have to do..BTW I am an NNA member.

Reply by Lee/AR on 5/19/09 9:37pm
Msg #289218

John...

Have been having an ongoing issue with TCT and...get this... every e-mail I get from someone at TCT also contains another e-mail address in the signature line for same person, but ends with [e-mail address] (or similar...FASS anyway).

Reply by Linda Hubbell on 5/19/09 9:40pm
Msg #289220

John, the issue isn't that TCT is requiring a BGC...

it's the fact that they will only accept the NNA BGC...you can get one on your own - they won't accept it; get one here from NotRot - they won't accept it; how about the CA notaries who have a seriously extensive BGC done for commissioning? - they won't accept it....tells me the NNA has managed to convince them they are the end-all be-all of notaries. If the NNA would offer JUST the BGC, I'd have no problem with it either. But I refuse to join an organization I don't wish to join and re-certify through them (I didn't go brain-dead in the last 3 years) - and that's what you have to do to get the BGC...to the tune of, minimum, $99.

Makes me sick...

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 5/19/09 9:44pm
Msg #289222

I still have yet to be asked if I have a BGC. And I have worked for these people lately. I am just getting tired of them trying to grind me on my fees.

Reply by Claudine Osborne on 5/19/09 9:51pm
Msg #289224

My email sent..

Paul, Thank you for the info..I have emailed my complaint. If we ban together than maybe we can help ourselves. I hope they get a huge surge of emails..Come on folks lets talk to them now..

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/19/09 10:01pm
Msg #289226

Re: My email sent..

I *DO* wish the the NNA would drop the membership requirement.

They're pretty stupid, if you think about it. If they just sold the BGC, they'd probably sell quite a few more than they do now. But...as it is, I think the NNA BGC is kind of lame.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/19/09 9:56pm
Msg #289225

Here's the problem...

Background checks are a standard for many companies as part of their plan to be GLB compliant. The fact is that we are privy to the information that falls under the act and we should comply with the plans of the financial company.

The problem is that there is no national standard for notaries. Some of us (like in CA) have to go through the bend over kind of background check and hassle to obtain or renew our commissions now. However, other states will let anyone be a notary just for filling out a few papers. There is no national standard to be a notary.... so just saying, "I'm a notary you have to trust me," is ridiculous.

Companies don't want to have to deal on a state-by-state basis when looking for notaries, so they decide to implement something that is a national standard. Well... how many national standard checks are out there for notaries?

It's all about marketing the standard.

I have the NNA check... and while I think the NNA is completely useless...I will maintain it simply because I get plenty of good paying work from it (no, I don't take the $65 offers...but I don't really get those anymore...my last NNA-referred job paid $155) and, despite how I feel about it... it's how OTHERS perceive having that check, not how I perceive it. The NNA check I have is humorous. They asked for my maiden name, but the check didn't reference it at all, and a few other silly things. There's nothing really to hide... it just seemed like a waste when I know that the CA/FBI check I had done is far more substantial.

Here's something a lot of people don't know... the NNA will certify and issue a background clearance to someone who is not even a commissioned notary! I know of two people who took the NNA signing agent course and got the BGC certification while they were waiting for their commissions in CA. Not once were they actually asked for their commission number or if they were even planning on becoming a notary. Neither one of these people even took the notary training from the NNA. They just joined, took the NSA training online...took the test online submitted to the check and wham -- certified NSAs... without actually being a notary.

So...yeah... the NNA is completely useless. But, they are full of marketing people who know how to sell a standard. Even though I think that standard is silly... I maintain it as a throwaway designation because it impresses people. Of course... I realize other people might think it makes me look like a sheep. Eh... I know I'm better than that and my work reflects it, I hope. I may or may not renew the NSA designation this summer...I haven't decided yet. I don't really care for the NNA... but they haven't hurt me either unless you count the email I got today saying "You membership is about to expire!" -- a whole 4 months early.

The problem with the BGC offered through NotRot is that the marketing isn't on the same level to "sell" it to the people who should make it standard. Also, while we know who the people are behind the NR/NVR check... a lot of the big companies responsible for making the GLB Compliance plans decisions may not. We all know that that NVR check is far superior to the NNA check. But... who really *cares* about it besides us?

The standard can be changed, but I think it's a bit of a battle when you're dealing with the NNA. I do wish the ASN would take a stand on this and make a push as a sponsor of the NVR standard.

Or... I'd wish some companies would just get a clue and only require BGCs of those notaries who didn't pass one in order to actually become a notary. For those of us in CA... it's all redundant fluff.


I suppose it's kind of like the battle between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice. OpenOffice is awesome software, free and is compatible with Microsoft files. But... the marketing reality is people buy the Microsoft product because it has become a standard.

The same goes for Quickbooks. Personally, I hate Quickbooks... but everyone uses it, so I have to have it, too, to work with client files.

Of course, if I had a moral issue...it might be different. I find the NNA annoying and useless, but not immoral. I know some of you feel differently...but I'm really on the indifferent fence with them. I'll use them the way it benefits me...but that's about it.

Reply by Linda Hubbell on 5/19/09 10:13pm
Msg #289228

Marian - based on these statements

"the NNA will certify and issue a background clearance to someone who is not even a commissioned notary! I know of two people who took the NNA signing agent course and got the BGC certification while they were waiting for their commissions in CA. Not once were they actually asked for their commission number or if they were even planning on becoming a notary. Neither one of these people even took the notary training from the NNA. They just joined, took the NSA training online...took the test online submitted to the check and wham -- certified NSAs... without actually being a notary"


"We all know that that NVR check is far superior to the NNA check. "

Maybe YOU should also write to the DOJ...especially with the first example...that's a very interesting piece of information.

MHO

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/19/09 10:36pm
Msg #289236

Re: Marian - based on these statements

No kidding! In fact, right on the website somewhere it says (I think) something about encouraging them to obtain the status while waiting for their commission so they're to go when their commission arrives...or something like that. I'll have to log in and find it.

I was really surprised about the issuing of the Certified NSA & BGC Clearance to a non-notary. Membership itself doesn't surprise me... that's no big deal. But the certifications?

I know that the NVR check at least asks for your commission information. I'm pretty sure they verify it, too. I've been mulling over getting that one, too... but dang... not sure what it would find that the CA DOJ, DMV and FBI didn't already know. The NNA one completely ignored the fact that I lived in another state less than 10 years ago, even though I gave them the information. The only reason I have it in the first place is because an employing client paid for it for me (the membership, training, check, all of it). It's a long story... but let's just say that this client has a close relationship with someone at the NNA and she thought she doing me a big favor and, admittedly, being very generous. I couldn't really turn it down... and in reality, it's only helped. I've earned back from it far more than she paid in. I know some people say they never get calls... but I do, all the time.

Reply by Tom/NJ on 5/20/09 5:45am
Msg #289255

Re: Marian - based on these statements

What does it really mean to be a "certified NSA?" Really nothing IMHO. I concede that it does include the word notary in the title but the certificate is nothing more than to add to your collection of certificates. A TC or SS is not going to allow you to handle their packets because you are a Certified NSA.

As for the background clearance, anyone can get a paid for background clearance and it won't get you anything unless you need it to apply for employment or just want to see what is on your record. That is not a big deal in the slightest bit.

Don't get me wrong, it really annoys me that TCT and other companies out there are requiring these specific background checks. I can assure you, there are probably very few people that have the background check that I do, and it is disturbing to know that the required background check, in the industry, is "better" than any other.

I just don't see a problem with allowing people to become "certified NSAs" or giving them a background check. Look, if you're stupid enough to think that is all that is required, than that's your problem(in generalities). I'm not sure why anyone else would go this route, other than those that are awaiting their commission through their individual state.

Reply by Stamper_WI on 5/19/09 10:21pm
Msg #289233

I don't know Marion

That all sounds like "Pay to Play" Which is exactly what this is. That is the crux of my problem with them. A big part of this is the lenders that are demanding this. Gramm leach leaves it to the lenders to decide their policy on BGC.
The nccus is in the process of standardizing Notary law and actions nationally. Part of this includes reasons for denial of commission which for all I can see, is what they look for in a background check. In their draft , they do not specifically address BGC's.
So between the Lenders, NNA and the company they use there seems to be an awful lot of backscratching going on and we pay for it. I would take odds on yet more levels and requirements to come.

Reply by Lee/AR on 5/19/09 10:46pm
Msg #289239

Don't go there.

C'mon, let's not stump for national standards. This is and should remain (along with a whole world of other issues) a State's Rights matter. Let's not destroy the Constitution...just the XYZ.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/19/09 11:02pm
Msg #289240

Re: I don't know Marion

Right, GLB does not require background checks. It requires companies to have a plan... and many companies choose to require background checks as part of their plan. They don't *have* to. But, they also have the right to accept or reject a "standard" based on their plan. And, if someone sold them on a standard... they sold them.

Hey, 9000 people thought that the DeLorean was a good car, too.

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 5/19/09 11:35pm
Msg #289241

DeLorean was a good car ....

DeLorean himself became a crook trying to market a dream ....

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 5/19/09 11:37pm
Msg #289242

OOps, I forgot this

http://www.delorean.com/

Reply by MichiganAl on 5/20/09 12:18am
Msg #289244

My issue is this...

It doesn't say "we require a thorough background check, here is what the check has to entail, etc..." Instead it says we require the NNA check and their check only. If that isn't possible collusion and anti-trust, I guess I don't know what is.

The Microsoft comparison is an ironic one, considering Microsoft was pursued hard by the DOJ for anti-competitive business practices, a case Microsoft lost at trial and later settled.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/20/09 12:44am
Msg #289245

Re: My issue is this...

Al, I actually totally agree with you. My point is that the "suits" who make the decisions to only allow the NNA check likely haven't been educated enough to know that there are other, better checks out there. The lackeys who pass on the message won't have any decision making power in these large organizations. The NNA has a lot of pull because of their size and marketing power, something one of the other background check providers can't really match.

The guy who run JoeBlow Title back East probably has no idea that any of the California notaries who are new or renewed from 1/1/08 onward have passed a rigorous background check that extends beyond what the NNA covers. The CA SoS doesn't have any interest in marketing that to anyone. It's up to the notaries to say, "Hey! I already did this!" But... JoeBlow isn't going to listen to a notary... they'll pay more attention to larger, more visible organizations.

I do have to admit that I did take advantage of a new NNA benefit, though. They have negotiated with FedEx a 26% discount on Express Shipping in the US for NNA members, no minimum shipping. I'm okay with that! I signed right up.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 5/20/09 4:06am
Msg #289252

I'm with you on that one!

Plus the memberships and other fees they extort from someone before they can even choose to buy their BGC, whether you want them or not. And I can't think of a single justification for that requirement, except to line their pockets!

Reply by BobbiCT on 5/20/09 7:07am
Msg #289261

TransContinental Title & First American

Very simple. TransContinental Title is requiring that any vendor that wants to do business with them MUST 1) be a National Notary Association member, 2) must be a NNA signing agent section member, 3) must "jump through whatever" hoops to have a background check paid through the NNA. The vendor is responsible for all costs.

TransContinental Title and First American are a private companies. They can do that.

In short: If you want to work for TransContinental Title, First American or its affiliates you have to pay NNA dues. Just like requiring union membership.

My curiosity throught: Since the NNA and TransContinental / First American brokered this deal, how much of a kickback is Transcontinental / First American getting from the NNA for each vendor's membership dues? They can do that, too.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 5/20/09 8:07am
Msg #289269

Agree with Bobbi. They can set any conditions that

they desire so long as they do not involve race, religion, etc.
If you want to work for them , you do it their way.

Reply by Linda Juenger on 5/20/09 9:18am
Msg #289276

Bob is correct. I posted this in another thread below

My hubby owns and operates his own big rig, a tanker. In order to get his CDL with the hazmat indorsement, he had to have a background check. They only accept 1 company. You could have a hundred of them, but they will not accept them. It is done through 1 company called Identix (sp). This company has the exclusive contract and until someone takes that contract away, that's the only one they accept. Is this right, wrong, I don't know. If you don't do it their way, you don't get your license and you don't work. Simple as that. Take it or leave it. He also had to go to Springfield (capital) and have it done, which is almost a 2hr drive. Since 911, tanker drivers have had to jump through all kinds of State and Federal regulations to haul hazardous materials, another story.
I don't mind having it done through the NNA. That's not a problem if that's what they want. My problem, as a lot of us have stressed is the added requirment of membership and certification through the NNA. I refuse to do this and say so long to TCT. I have enjoyed working for them and this will come back to haunt them. I was a member for 2 years and never received any work at all. Not a wise way to spend my money and refuse to join.

Reply by PAW on 5/20/09 9:59am
Msg #289281

Re: Agree with Bobbi. They can set any conditions that

They can set the rules anyway they desire. However, if they specify that a certain company is the only one that can provide a service, then the entity that sets the rule is responsible for payment or at least reimbursement to the contractor. Many companies require that applicants, including contractors, submit to a drug test. The company usually specifies which lab or doctor must be used. The company is obligated to pay for the test. At least this is what I was told when I worked for the bank. The bank had either pay for the tests, including background checks, or reimburse the applicant if the applicant paid for the required service.

Reply by Janel Nichols on 5/20/09 9:58am
Msg #289280

Re: TransContinental Title & First American

I agree with Bobbi. It is all about money. I know very well that when they don't like my fee, they will use an uncertified notary from a bank, insurance company, or real estate office that they can convince to make a few extra bucks, just to get the deal done. These vendors may have a relationship with the NNA, but whomever is scheduling sure has never asked, nor ever will ask for proof of said certification or BGC. They use whomever is cheaper to get the job done. It really looks as if this is a networking relationship to make additional money off of us; not necessarily to strictly use NNA certified signing agents, otherwise they would schedule their closing accordingly to make sure only NNA certified signing agents were used without fail. This will never happen because the all mighty dollar rules that game. So, they can appear however they want, but the reality is, they don't always use BGC or certified signing agents to do their jobs, and cost is the number one reason, not experience. They certainly are not promising us all the work in our areas if we do jump through their hoops. These companies are helping each other, depending upon our reaction. We have to weigh the benefits of jumping through their hoops for ourselves and what will truly benefit "us". I don't let someone else tell me that. I decide for better or for worse and keep moving forward.

Fear is a very old tactic, and people really respond to it when it is directed at the core of a persons livelihood. It may elicit a reaction, but it is important not to be too reactionary. I for one have exited the rat maze and will start focusing on diversifying my options and talents. The more we keep giving it fuel the more advertising they get and the more some people will part with their hard earned money without really thinking it through. I encourage people to really weigh the pros and cons before jumping through costly hoops.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/20/09 10:03am
Msg #289283

Re: TransContinental Title & First American

"Fear is a very old tactic, and people really respond to it when it is directed at the core of a persons livelihood"

Which is precisely why the DOJ heard from me yesterday...wonder how TCT is going to like THAT fire they started...

Reply by jba/fl on 5/20/09 10:47am
Msg #289289

Ditto Janel -

"Fear is a very old tactic, and people really respond to it when it is directed at the core of a persons livelihood. It may elicit a reaction, but it is important not to be too reactionary. I for one have exited the rat maze and will start focusing on diversifying my options and talents. The more we keep giving it fuel the more advertising they get and the more some people will part with their hard earned money without really thinking it through. I encourage people to really weigh the pros and cons before jumping through costly hoops."

Ditto! Very well put.

Reply by MW/VA on 5/20/09 8:16am
Msg #289271

I think I brought this up before--how about a Class Action Suit against XYZ for the damages involved in being threatened & intimidated into their Cert/BGC. When you really examine it, it is absolutely worthless. It only means that you get the XYZ "stamp of approval"--nothing more. The XYZ is self-promoting, using our membership $$$$$'s. It's sad that they are able to convince these major companies that their's is the standard by which all should comply.
Apparently the DOJ investigating them for some of their practices did nothing to deter their zealous campaign. This makes me furious!
I admit that I bought into it as a "newbie". I have used the Cert/BGC as a credential--what a mistake! I think I will remove it from my profiles, website, & business cards. I don't want to have any part in promoting or advertising for them.

Reply by MW/VA on 5/20/09 8:34am
Msg #289272

What's really hysterical about this is the problems I had when I had my BCG through XYZ.
They used Lexis-Nexis. There were some errors on my report (previous addresses belonging to my X). I contacted L-N about getting it corrected, and was required to provide some information in order for them to correct it. Then there was a Class Action again Lexis-Nexis for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. I received $1,000 settlement in that case.
So much for a "standard" they they are claiming to set. What a joke!!!

Reply by Ilene C. Seidel on 5/20/09 9:08am
Msg #289274

I've jumped thru their hoops but get calls rarely.

Reply by Stamper_WI on 5/20/09 9:47am
Msg #289277

I rarely get signings from this company. They cited First American in their email. I get more signings directly from them. They haven't said anything about this requirement.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/20/09 9:50am
Msg #289278

I've only done a few for them - they're not a steady

client for me, not like the other poster - nor have they ever paid me $175 for a signing...which is why I'm not devastated about saying goodbye to TCT. I don't want to, but if I have to join the NNA to get their work, it's not happening.

Reply by Patricia Manatt on 5/20/09 10:05am
Msg #289284

Re: I've only done a few for them - they're not a steady

Same here, Linda! If my Federal Government Background screening and my Pennsylvania State Police screening isn't good enough, well, they can kiss my backside.

Reply by Richard Ingram on 5/20/09 11:26am
Msg #289294

Re: I've only done a few for them - they're not a steady

I agree with Marian that each company has a right to establish their own standards. I am not an NNA fan but after dropping out for a year I did finally agree to the BGC in order to satisfy FASS and keep a steady flow of business from them. Transcontinental Title is one of my favorites so I am now glad that I have this issue behind me. Also, I do find that I get several signings a month from Signing Agents.com.
We can each evaluate the positive and negative with each issue and thankfully make our own choices. One of the hardest lessons to learn is there is always three sides to every story, yours, mine and the right side.

Reply by PA_Notary_II on 5/20/09 3:37pm
Msg #289319

Here's the funny thing, Richard...

I won't work for FASS.....low ballers, but when First American Title calls, they meet my fee and I have worked for them without a bgc and was never asked if I had one. The point is they will give you work when they need you regardless. I'm betting the same thing will happen with TCT.

Reply by SueW/Tn on 5/20/09 4:04pm
Msg #289326

Re: I've only done a few for them - they're not a steady

So once you've jumped through all the necessary hoops and paid the huge amount for certification, membership and BGC and the calls from TCT trail away (as they've continued to do for the past couple of year) what then?

Counting on companies as opposed to relying on your own marketing abilities gets you this:

Low ball SA's that will snatch that sweet relationship right out from under ya and what do you have to show for it? A nice new shiny BGC.

We all have to do what we feel is necessary to keep our heads above water, for me personally having more than one BGC is a huge waste of paper and definitely a waste of my hard earned money. Without a written guarantee from the company that I'll recoup my expense, I'll press on without 'em.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/20/09 6:43pm
Msg #289363

Yep - see my post above about the response to

my e-mail....they claim to be recruiting for 6 months to replace the notaries that don't comply...hello? that means they're taking the lower priced notaries - any bets their fees drop like a rock?

Reply by MW/VA on 5/20/09 9:30pm
Msg #289412

Re: Yep - see my post above about the response to

They're always recruiting for good reason--need new suckers & new money.

Reply by Brian Dayton on 5/20/09 4:07pm
Msg #289329

In pa you can get a background done by PA State Police for $10.00 here is the link:

https://epatch.state.pa.us/Home.jsp

of course this in only for PA. See if the title company will allow that (for PA notary of course maybe other states have same). Seem like nna is trying to push their new background check service.