Posted by Diann/MI on 2/26/12 7:50am
Msg #413082

Driver's license info required

Had a signing service contact me recently wanting to add me to their data base. I sent them a copy of my notary commission, my background screening and my W-9 as well as filling out their very tedious application. However, they wanted a copy of my driver's license and a copy of my automobile insurance (which I refused to supply). I told them that they required too much information and I was not willing to give it to them. They politely told me that if I did not comply they would not use my services (which is OK with me). Is there a logical reason they would need my driver's information. Please share!!

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 2/26/12 8:05am
Msg #413083

I have no idea why they require that except to show

you have a current valid license - which repeat offenders won't have (at least not in FL)...I'll provide a copy with all the important stuff blacked out - which in the end is probably useless to them.

Copy of car insurance? I won't send it - none of their business.

JMO

Reply by mwm143 on 2/26/12 8:35am
Msg #413084

You can mark though your DL number and policy number before sending the info. The insurance info is probably requested because some notary once upon a time damaged something while on a borrowers property and didn't have auto insurance to cover the damage.

Reply by Diann/MI on 2/26/12 8:37am
Msg #413085

I did mark through the driver's license number except for the last 4 digits. They refused to accept it.

Reply by Art_PA on 2/26/12 10:06am
Msg #413090

First, no company really needs this DL information. Having the DL & SSN will make it easier for an identity thief inside or who hacks their files.

Second, do you know anything about this company? It is not uncommon for people trying to start a signing service to spend time collecting names. You will never get work from a company that has no work to assign.

In my experience, I rarely get work from a company that has a long application.....sometimes, but rarely.

Reply by HisHughness on 2/26/12 11:24am
Msg #413094

There is a legitimate reason this information is requested

You engage in work that involves your automobile. If you are involved in an incident while on an assignment, there is a better-than-average chance that you would be named a party in any subsequent litigation. Your principal, the hiring party, would need the information they have requested in defense of that lawsuit.

It does not matter that you are an independent contractor, and may ultimately prevail in any legal action based on that or other defenses. That you have a defense does not stop the <filing> of a lawsuit; it simply means that you may ultimately prevail.

There is a legitimate reason to request such information, and signing agents are foolish to pass up business because they do not wish to provide it.

Title companies and signing services are beginning to realize the extent of their exposure in using signing agents; thus the recent explosion in requests for background checks. Had I been a business that used signing agents, I would have demanded background checks from the git-go. The liability, for example, of hiring a registered sex offender to go to someone's dwelling where they will be voluntarily granted access is staggering. That's not even to mention the liability of providing a thief with a person's most intimate financial details.

The same process is eventually going to obtain with respect to driving records and auto insurance, and it would be vastly accelerated if any title company or SS were to be sued because of an action by an NSA enroute to or from a signing. That would reverberate around the industry, and requiring such information would be not just commonplace, but SOP.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 2/26/12 11:38am
Msg #413095

And I submit that this would be a state-specific issue

as to liability....

If I am involved in an incident involving my automobile for which a claim is filed against me, it's against me and my automobile..not the SS that sent me out. IMO There is no claim against the SS.

There's also a reason why insurance companies charge an additional premium for coverage for this - it's a business rider.

Reply by HisHughness on 2/26/12 12:13pm
Msg #413099

Linda, I don't think you understand

Even if it is conceded that everything you say is true, and even if you go even further and say that there are NO circumstances under which a TC or SS could be liable, any trial lawyer worth his pay is going to cast the widest possible net in any litigation. At some point the information will have to be provided.

There's just no point, in my opinion, in turning down business because you don't want to provide the information. I suspect that within the next five years, if our profession survives, requiring such information will be de rigueur. If any Central Texas NSAs don't want to cough up that data to an SS or TC, please send them my way. I'll be happy to give it to them -- framed under glass, if they wish.

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/26/12 5:53pm
Msg #413126

Completely agree with Linda H/FL n/m

Reply by Jack/AL on 2/26/12 11:44am
Msg #413096

Thanks, Hugh. I hope all read your reply.

This is one of those topics that repeatedly pops up, with most responders saying they'd not supply the info and why. I have no concerns about letting TCs and SSs know that info, and plenty more.

Reply by Lee/AR on 2/26/12 12:14pm
Msg #413100

Re: There is a legitimate reason this information is requested

While I do understand your reasoning, Hugh, it seems to me that these requests could easily be accelerated to 'we require' $X amount of auto insurance and, say, no traffic violations of any sort. Too many SS are flying by the seat of their pants and I wonder if they bother to check out their own employees on the same things they want us to supply--and what about our own privacy? Banks must disclose 'how they use our info'....ever seen that from an SS???

Reply by Diann/MI on 2/26/12 12:55pm
Msg #413103

Re: There is a legitimate reason this information is requested

I'd like to elaborate. When I asked about the need for this information, the guy mumbled something about a background check. However, I had already supplied a current background screening. So his answer sounded like one of those "because I said so" answers. He didn't really seem to know the exact reason. I also wonder about their privacy policy and who has access to all of this information.

Reply by BrotherOwner on 2/26/12 12:59pm
Msg #413104

Re: There is a legitimate reason this information is requested

Respecfully disagree with your statements Hugh.....

1) If I am driving to/from an assignment I may also stop off at Piggly Wiggley or MickyD's on the way to or from, and if I'm turning ito their space, or in their space, or diving down a freeway or a country lane, unless their IS cause for negligence of one of those parties, including the city, state, county, there would be no reaqson to include them in a lawsuit. I may be doing ANY of thse in addition to being an independent contractor, wher ALL libility is mine.

2) If it were important or necessary to have that info, don't you think ALL SS AND title co would request/require it? More than likely the DL info is used for some form of discimination-age- etc. Did you ever ask a SS what they DO with the info? How your data is protected? You do not have the same rights/protections that the clients do. You voluntarily provide data and there is NOTHING preventing them from disseminating/selling your info! Bottom line, do trust that SS? Try and change the wording in their BS "agreement". It's all one sided to "protect" them and make you something less than an independant contracter. I've seen some that run on for pages and pages. One of the tests for employer/ employee determination is direction and control. Many of these super agreement companies are at or are over the line of control./direction.

3) While I understand your point about background checks, and putting someone in the client's home, we are not afforded the same rights when it comes to dealing with the person/ss at the other end of the phone. Thieves, scum, sex offender, convicted felon. they can all start an SS, and some do. Not with MY data.....

4) "IF" a lawsuit is filed anyway, the first thing that will happen is Discovery, and any NECESSARY information would be brought out. What POSSIBLE use could a SS have for auto insurance except maybe to look at vehicle details? What if it expires tomorrow? Change companies, sell car, take cab, have someone else DRIVE me for medical reasons, liive in Podunk, USA and use a bicycle (take that MR. Liberal, wink!)

If a SS is that interested in that level of detail about ME, how much time are they spending being MY partner to get the job done right.? Ther are plenty of companies out there without having to deal with the flakes, from whom I have no guarantee of privacy or business.

Reply by Stoli on 2/26/12 2:12pm
Msg #413109

In California, the offenses would disqualify a notary

The criminal history would be discovered by the FBI or Department of Justice during the required background check, and the commission would be denied. Is that true in other states?

Reply by Art_PA on 2/26/12 2:33pm
Msg #413112

Re: There is a legitimate reason this information is requested

It has been pointed out that even the SS employee did not know why the copy of the license was "required". It is highly doubtful that a company "building a database" intended to do an independent driving record search.

And exactly how many signing services, lenders, or title companies have been joined in a legal action arising from a motor vehicle accident involving an independent contractor/notary? A background check is reasonable for the protection of a SS, which will show any drunk driving, criminal activity, or other conduct which it believes disqualifies a notary from employment. Of course state laws relating to liability vary, but are there any states which make a company vicariously liable for the actions of an independent contractor in the absence of actual knowledge that the notary is a reckless driver? One can argue that collecting drivers license information and then not conducting a further investigation makes the company more liable, than if it just relies on a background check.

Does the SS request copies of drivers licenses from Fed Ex or UPS of its drivers who may carry documents? A notary going to and from an appointment is engaged in the same conduct as the delivery driver.

Reply by Mia on 2/26/12 1:49pm
Msg #413106

I gave a copy of my Driver's License to the MI Secretary of State -- Office of the Great Seal.
Which was needed (I could have given a MI ID card also) to become a Notary Public. It is not a requirement in MI to have a drivers license to become a Notary Public.
Our Notary Public Commissions would be revoked "if" we had any of the following: Felony Conviction, or 3 misdemeanors.

I have given copies of my Drivers License when asked but, I blacken out the number and my
birthdate. There is NO reason for them to ask for this info. Identity theft is the main reason
I will not give this information out. I will not give a copy of my vehicle insurance to anyone (except a Police Officer).... unless of course the hiring entity wants to pay for my vehicle insurance.

Signing Services are not certified or have any sort of regulatory entities watching them, like Lenders and Title Companies. We must be very careful when we give out our information.
We have had fly by night Sigining Services for as long as I have been in this business.

My thoughts --> If in doubt, don't give the info out.

..

Reply by 101livescan on 2/26/12 2:27pm
Msg #413110

How about, you show me yours, and I'll show you mine! The fact that CA notaries are background checked by DOJ and FBI every four years speaks volumes about our credibility to be approved/commissioned.

Reply by Mia on 2/26/12 3:15pm
Msg #413114

I bet this guy had a Background Check & submitted a d/l

OK, so he isn't a Notary Public, but, he is indeed held to a higher standard.
So, since he did this, do we not want to hire anymore people because their
is one bad apple in the bushel?

"Cold Case Solved: Officer Kevin Yang caught in the act stealing food from fridge"
http://news.asiantown.net/r/22886/cold-case-solved--officer-kevin-yang-caught-in-the-act-stealing-food-from-fridge

Reply by HisHughness on 2/26/12 3:56pm
Msg #413118

So many posts by people with their heads...

...in an unmentionable place, and I do not refer to the sand.

This is the website for a Florida law firm that deals heavily in lawsuits involving negligent employment. If you can clear your eyes long enough, you may want to check it out. http://www.sharminlaw.com/library/negligent-employment/

My thanks to the poster who made MY point by contending that title companies and signing services should also expect to see driver information for couriers that handle their packages. TCs and SSs, of course, hire NSAs directly. They do not hire FedEx or UPS drivers directly. But if a TC or SS ever suffered damage because of something that occurred while a package was in the custody of a courier, and if it turned out that the driver did not have a driver's license, any smart lawyer would sue the courier company for negligent employment. And that would likely be true even if the courier on its face was not responsible for the problem.

A wise TC or SS would want to make sure that it has every base covered. NSAs can rail against any requests for the information, they can bow their necks and say they will never give it, they can cite all sorts of quite reasonable or even quite irrational reasons for not providing it and why TCs and signing services are lower than dung beetles for requesting it, but the requests are going to keep coming and they are going to grow in frequency.

As one who has no qualms about providing the information, I urge all signing agents in my service area to refuse to give it to anyone who asks, and tell them never to call again because the request is offensive. Or simply tell them you will provide your information when they provide theirs. NSAs in areas outside MY service area might want to take a different tack, though.

Reply by Buddy Young on 2/26/12 5:16pm
Msg #413120

Re: So many posts by people with their heads...

Hugh is correct people, on more than one point.

It only makes since that a lawyer would name everyone possible in a lawsuit, no matter how remotely connected. The SS are only trying to cover all the bases.

I find his comments irrefragable.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 2/26/12 5:59pm
Msg #413129

Re: So many posts by people with their heads...

There you go, talkin' dirty again, Buddy. (LOL) But speaking of irrefragability, and not necessarily to change the subject, but every time we get on this subject about everybody suing everybody else for anything and everything, I think about notaries suing SSs and TCs for nonpayment. It's always been my contention that when a notary goes after whoever in court, that everybody involved in the transaction (TC, SS, lender, borrower, Realtor, you name it) needs to be inlcuded into the process, too - whether named in the suit or simply notified that a suit has been filed over a transaction in which they were involved, the latter being common sense (wouldn't you want to know if someone was being sued regarding your property?)

Yet, I'm already hearing the howls of protest that the borrower has already paid, (waa waa)that the TC paid the SS, one excuse after another... seems to me if that if I plowed into the signer's mailbox and didn't carry sufficient insurance, and the signer's attorney went after my SS and by extention, the TC that hired the SS, then we can do the same. What's good for the goose is good for all us ganders..... In other words if a hiring agency wants to see proof that we are properly able to carry out an assignment for them without getting them sued, than we should expect that they are properly able to compensate us for the assignment, and if it turns out that they are not, then we sue everybody, too. Just keep going for the deep pockets.

Reply by Buddy Young on 2/26/12 6:45pm
Msg #413132

Re: I agree with you, Goldgirl n/m

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/26/12 5:51pm
Msg #413125

Re: So many posts by people with their heads...

Hugh, you've eloquently stated your view in your first response in this thread - and you do have a point...but what is the point to the ridiculous theatrics (i.e. So many posts by people with their heads......in an unmentionable place, and I do not refer to the sand.) ?

And whenever others disagree with your point, you ruin it with unnecessary nonsense, blather, drivel and other theatrics (i.e. I urge all signing agents in my service area to refuse to give it to anyone who asks, and tell them never to call again because the request is offensive. Or simply tell them you will provide your information when they provide theirs.)


<<<As one who has no qualms about providing the information,....>>>

Great, then YOU provide your private info as you see fit. And those who refuse to provide their information have no qualms about not working with companies that require it. That is their view and their right to believe that way.

As Stoli pointed out - felons (sex offenders) would not be commissioned in CA....and to add to that, it is CA law for ALL drivers to carry liability insurance and any CA business owner with assets to protect (homeowner) will have more than the state minimum requirements (i.e. liability + comp & collision, uninsured motorist, medical, umbrella policy, etc).

I agree with Linda H/Fl.....the only copy of my ID an SS and TC will get is where everything except my name address and expiration year are redacted. My auto insurance is NONE of the SS or TCs businesses.....I have it because the state of CA demands that I have it. And there's no point to having auto insurance with no current driver's license....so I have that too. And even if I weren't in CA, they'd get what I'd give them, period.

Reply by HisHughness on 2/26/12 8:26pm
Msg #413139

I do come with warts, Lisa. n/m

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/26/12 8:32pm
Msg #413140

Compound W Freeze Off, Hugh n/m

Reply by anotaryinva on 2/26/12 6:43pm
Msg #413131

Re: So many posts by people with their heads...

Hi Hugh

Reply by BrotherOwner on 2/26/12 9:02pm
Msg #413142

Re: Hugh, you made MY point....

Those cases are ALL based on an EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE relationship. NOT the case here as we are NOT employees! Follow this: In a possible suit situation, arn't the requesting SSs putting MORE liability on themselves by getting a DL # and NOT doing anything with it. You are claiming they see a liability, but they are NOT doing anything to miigate it. Do you actually think they run a D/L check? I can virtually guarantee they are NOT. Why? 2 reasons. 1) they aren't getting your permission to run it. 2) at least in MY state you have to be set up WITH the state, approved, and have a Valid reason to access the DL database. Cost per request. LARGE $$$ to get set up and approved. I know one of the approved private vendors in my state, ( there are only a few here ) who is licensed/authorized ( I'm not familiar with the exact terminology)by the state to access the DL database. They are able to sell the info to those with a demonstrated need to know (insuance agents, Ins. companies, etc) for a fee per hit. Not cheap. Do you think a SS is going to pay the fees, or even bother to be set up inall the states wher they contact NSAs? Notice I didn't say hire.

As an aside, there has been a recent investgation by the state into law enforcement officers in a significant number of places across the state for "surfing" the database with no legal reason. Celebrities/sports figures...Access has been tightened.

Reply by HisHughness on 2/26/12 10:27pm
Msg #413152

Is it that you guys are incapable of getting it...

...or you just don't want to do so?

Do you really think that I don't know the difference between an employee and an independent contractor? And all the other detritus you have flung down to rationalize not doing the sensible thing and providing information that is obviously relevant to your professional relationships?

FACTS matter in who will prevail in a lawsuit. They matter little if at all in who will be made parties to a lawsuit.

Let us take your oh-so-confident invocation of the employee/independent contractor dichotomy with the contention that it insulates you from suit, and see what a cunning barrister could do with that.

One of the hallmarks of an independent contractor is that he is not subject to the direction of the principal. He is given a task, and then told to complete it; the method is largely up to him. Is that the case with the signing agent? Hardly. The principal tells him explicitly when and where the task is to be done. He will be told what type of shirt to wear, and what type of pants not to wear; his interaction with the borrower will be circumscribed by the principal. He may even be instructed not to distribute a business card to anyone else involved in the transaction. Throughout the task he has been given, he will be required to follow meticulous instructions, down to the color of the ink, the size of the paper, and the type of printer he can use. Those instructions can often run on for 2 or 3 legal size pages.

Does that sound like an independent contractor? Now, a signing agent ultimately may be able to prevail on the point, but a clever lawyer could jump him through so many hoops before he reached that point that he's going to look like a circus clown's performing dog when he's through.

Myself, I prefer to give a TC or SS the driver information I think they have a right to request. I can't tell you how that might redound to my benefit in the future, but I sure as hell can tell you how refusing to do it could redound to my detriment now in lost business.

You take the principle. I'll take the pay.

Reply by Mia on 2/26/12 8:25pm
Msg #413138

Hugh - - blatherskites

This is just one of his what if's what if's. No facts or substance.

Under his thinking -- I should sue the borrowers for their dog peeing
on my shoe and ruining it...... I should sue the SS, TC & Lender etc.



..

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 2/26/12 9:11pm
Msg #413143

Re: Hugh - - blatherskites

Correct: You would sue the dog, the dog's owners, the shoe-maker for having an inferior product that couldn't stand up to dog pee, the lender for hiring the TC, the TC for hiring the SS and the SS for sending you only to have the dog pee on your shoe. Also, if the dog was licensed, the governmental agency that licensed the misbehaving dog.

Reply by BrotherOwner on 2/26/12 9:24pm
Msg #413146

Re: contibutory negligence...you forgot to wear your

rain boots or ask all of the above if there was a dog....

Reply by Susan Fischer on 2/26/12 11:39pm
Msg #413155

So funny GG - adding to the $$$ed pockets: the Vet who

administered the lethal injection that put the [insert Pit Bull/etal] down due to "violent peeing."]

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/27/12 2:34am
Msg #413162

Re: Hugh - - blatherskites

As I understand this, Hugh isn't saying what one "should" do. As an attorney himself, he is just advising us about what one "could" do, and what people often "do" do. [And no, this wasn't a reference back to the issue with the dog... ]

Some seeking a legal action - probably under the advice of an attorney - will often name any party they can think of in a suit, whether or not it makes any sense or if they have a snowball's chance of winning. I'm thinking that's his point. And if a hiring party is named, they still may have to defend themselves, even if it's a frivolous suit. This is a concept we should all understand, as I'd guess a high percentage of the docs we have to have signed by borrowers are there because of some previous legal action, sensible or otherwise. (Again, jmho.)

The other side of the issue, though, is that if a company we know nothing about asks for our personal identity info, I believe there is some risk involved and we should weigh that in each individual case before making a decision about what info to provide to whom. It's the old potential risk vs potential reward issue, imo.

Reply by James Powell on 2/27/12 7:19am
Msg #413163

Another reason for the infop to be requested

How to hire a contractor

Look for proper licensing and insurance. Make sure the contractor is licensed to do business in your state and that he has proper general liability and workers-compensation insurance.

Under this philosophy, shouldn't a signing company want to see evidence that you (the independent contractor) is properly licensed and insured? It is in their best interest to ask for this information. It is in yours to provide it.

The issue of privacy in this case makes it trickier. Maybe there should be a call for not using DL information in a way that could cause identity theft. Of course, we see how well that worked with the social security number, which were initially stated as 'not to be used for identification purposes'.

Reply by Mia on 2/27/12 2:14pm
Msg #413222

James Powell

Since you are in Michigan too -- then you should realize what is needed to become a
Notary Public. We are Bonded (which we have to send a copy to the SOS/Office of Great
Seal), which protects the Public (only for negligence during our duty as a Notary).

So, what if I say that I don't have a Drivers License, & have someone else drive me, or I
take the Bus? Will they need that other persons drivers license, or the bus drivers license?
Look, the TC & SS have our address, phone number & email address -- they know where
to find us if they need to. IMHO this is just totally overkill --- but Hugh likes to stir things
up all the time (another boring day for him).
Are they going to ask for our Vehicle Insurance, homeowners insurance and any life insurance
policy we may have? So, NO it is not in my best interest to provide this very sensitive information to an unregulated signing service.


..

Reply by James Powell on 2/28/12 7:22am
Msg #413331

Re: James Powell

The request for driver's license is irrelevant to your ability to be a notary. As you pointed out, the bonding only protects the public from negligent notarial acts. That has nothing to do with whether you are properly licensed and insured to complete the job as a contractor.

Yes, they would be within their rights to ask for the license and proof of insurance of someone else that chauffeurs you to the appointment. Whether they would want to or not is their decision. However, I would suspect a reluctance to hire a party that had to rely on others for transport.

By the way, as an employee who drives their own car to conduct company business, I have to provide this same information to my employer. Granted, they already have my personal information. However, the basic idea is the same.

No one says you have to provide this information. However, no one is requiring a company to send business your way if you refuse. Once it becomes a trend, everyone will follow along, especially if the big players start making it a requirement. You can either moan and complain, or try and determine the best way to satisfy the requirement and preserve privacy at the same time.

Reply by Mia on 2/27/12 2:20pm
Msg #413223

James Powell you are not even a Notary Public

James Powell -- your Notary Commission expired in 2008.

FULL NAME
COUNTY
APPOINTMENT DATE
EXPIRATION DATE
CURRENT STATUS


POWELL, JAMES
WAYNE 2/19/2004 March 2008 Expired

Reply by James Powell on 2/28/12 7:12am
Msg #413330

Re: James Powell you are not even a Notary Public

So what. I still have an opinion that is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Reply by desktopfull on 2/28/12 10:53am
Msg #413346

Then they should be requesting commission # & bond info.

You don't have to be a licensed driver to be a notary. I will not given any company my DL or auto insurance info. I'm not an employee of any SS or TC that requests I close a loan for them, therefore I'm not covered under their worker's comp, liability ins. or any other benefits that employees have who are employees.

Reply by CopperheadVA on 2/27/12 8:31am
Msg #413171

I, like others, share a concern about how these small SS handle this sensitive information they are requesting. I have sent my DL to a select few large national title companies that have established privacy and security procedures in place. But the small SS companies - who knows how they protect the sensitive info.

Recently the owner/sole proprietor of a generally well-liked SS ask me to complete his sign-up package (mind you I have done several jobs for him without completing the sign-up package). I told him that he had sent it to me before, but off hand I could not remember why I didn't complete it. Knowing this could be the reason why I didn't complete it before, I asked him if the sign-up package requested me to send a copy of my drivers license? "Oh no I don't need that. Notaries send me copies of their drivers license all the time and I don't know why - I don't need it."

So he sends me the sign-up package and guess what is listed as a required item to submit? You guessed it - "Clear copy of your current driver license"!!!

So if this guy who runs a small SS doesn't even know that his sign-up package/contract that HE sends out is requesting this info, then he is confused why notaries are sending copies of their DL to him, what the heck is he doing with those copies and is he keeping them safe and secure???