Posted by VA/VA on 9/13/13 12:04pm
Msg #484494
Background monopoly
Lexis is no longer doing background checks, so Title Source will only now accept NNA's.
I called Title Source directly to see if they would accept my check that was done in July 2013.
Was told that the "attorneys" requirement that only NNA is now accepted.
| Reply by 101livescan on 9/13/13 12:08pm
Msg #484495
You wanna know why? It's all over the XYZ website...the only NSA's who will be hired in the future by the big SS companies and settlement agencies will be those with XYZ's background check, mandating membership in the NNA.
Now, if this isn't a monopoly, what is?
They pay big bucks to lobby, more than we have to lobby for the SS companies to be regulated, and they themselves be background checked as well.
Compliance issues? You bet. Where do I sign up to be a SS compliance officer, Bear900?
| Reply by MW/VA on 9/13/13 2:17pm
Msg #484525
IMO someone needs to go the DOJ about this. I don't
know the legal ramifications, but it borders on forming an exclusive organization, similar to a union. That is expressly prohibited in this industry. This is what angers me about them. They are just out to try to control the industry & have all the money go into their pockets. ;-(
No one is going to mandate that I belong to that organization, get their certification or bgc. I did that when I was starting out. Then they came back to me a couple of years down the road for more money to "renew". That's when I became wise to their game.
| Reply by NVLSlady/VA on 9/13/13 12:22pm
Msg #484496
Well now, this is of interest 'cause I am due a membership renewal with AAN - but now I don't see the sense in that
| Reply by apsnltch on 9/13/13 12:31pm
Msg #484499
Lexis Nexis should NOT be doing Background checks anymore. You should see the mounds of paperwork I have from ordering one of their personal free background checks(august 2013)....received 4 different packages in the mail at different times, titled different names of reports and had information included in it of a name similar to mine, but not and different social security # and birthdate and that persons husband and all their mortgages....wound up with over 200 pages of garbage all toll...My shredder almost died......
I am a notary (Bonded) 30+yrs, Township Clerk (bonded) 15 yrs, Outside Bookkeeper for a local Municipality (bonded) 12 years and work closely with the police department in the municipality I do the books for and I carry E&O insurance, I am a Registered Tax Return Preparer with E-File Privilages, 21 years and own a business (same) business 21 years. I worked for the Federal Government for 15 years and was a self employed Mortgage Loan officer for 10 years within my own business of 21 years. If this is not enough to cover my butt another company will call me tomorrow..... So far when a TC/SS has asked me for a background check I have replied with this information, with a little more finese' by the way, But they have not usually pressed this issue further. Not to say that they won't some day require a background..Maybe I haven't been called by the cos that Really Really Require it. I love to do this, and it is a nice addition to my Tax and Bookkeeping business but with those other avenues of income (unlike some poor soals) I have a little more freedom to pick and choose as the TC/SS do!!! THANKFULLY (by the way I am not as old as this experience makes me look....Close but....
| Reply by ME/NJ on 9/13/13 12:42pm
Msg #484503
My original reply did not post.. Been 11 years since I gave
NNA any money.. Will kill me if I need to BGC through them in 1.5 years.
| Reply by sueharke on 9/13/13 3:05pm
Msg #484551
Re: My original reply did not post.. Been 11 years since I gave
Sometimes it is advantageous to join the other side to learn what is going on from the inside (think people who buy one share of stock to get corporate reports). I might consider joining NNA and getting their bcg if I can use it my advantage in another way. The best way to affect the character of an organization is to change it as an insider. Don't like what you see, want changes from the organization - don't knock on the front door asking to come to achieve that goal.
| Reply by Stoli on 9/13/13 3:26pm
Msg #484562
Again – this is not a monopoly—
The title company has the right to conduct business with whomever they choose under whatever circumstances they choose. There isn’t a problem with single source providers, so long as they are not price fixing.
Remember the Levi Strauss Anti Trust Lawsuit?
CCPF was established in 1991 by the Honorable Ira A. Brown Jr. (deceased) of the San Francisco Superior Court of the State of California to administer and distribute approximately $5 million in cy pres funds remaining from the precedent establishing Levi Strauss consumer action lawsuit. Nelson Holl was the founding Executive Director.Our track record and reputation for accountability, low overhead, and transparency has led to our administration of many consumer trust funds since 1991. We currently administer the $25 million Community Collaborative Fund, which was created from the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE California to form Verizon Communications, subject to California Public Utilities Commission oversight. We also administered the $13 million Electric Education Trust on behalf of Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric, as authorized and approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. We have also received funds from the State Department of Consumer Affairs, the Attorney General’s Office, and private law firms.
Key Milestones
1991 – The Federal Trade Commission accused Levi Strauss of illegally fixing prices on men’s and boys’ jeans from 1972 to 1976 and the California attorney general brought an antitrust lawsuit against the company in 1978. Levi Strauss agreed to settle the case for $12 million and was required to give rebates, but not all members of the class could be located. The lawyers and consumer advocates argued that remaining settlement funds should not be returned to Levi Strauss. The Honorable Ira A. Brown Jr. (deceased) of the San Francisco Superior Court of California designated the residual funds as cy pres, which were distributed to the Attorney General and established CCPF, which was tasked with administering and distributing the funds to nonprofit organizations working on behalf of consumer interests.
| Reply by Darlin_AL on 9/13/13 7:07pm
Msg #484621
Ya lost me w/all that--can you simplify a bit? n/m
| Reply by MW/VA on 9/13/13 7:39pm
Msg #484627
She's saying that individual companies have a right to
set whatever criteria they want--membership in XYZ, only accept their bgc, etc., as long as they aren't involved with XYZ in price-fixing.
|
|
