[wyldfire]

If this happens to you, you should consider talking to:

1. Your state's AG [1]

2. The local TV news

3. Local police

I don't think I would call it a "legal scam," it sounds remarkably like fraud. Lots of modern fraud takes place over international VoIP calls, so the fact that there's a brick and mortar business with assets that can be seized means you shouldn't give up quickly.

> Even disputing a charge on the credit card — they have copies of our ID, smart.

Dispute it anyways. Yes, it may flip back on you once they disclose the fact that you were there. But just stipulate it upfront that you made the purchase but the terms were unclear or that the claims that they made regarding your rejection are false.

These guys sound like they are clever enough to try and make their scheme as close to legal as possible. They made sure that the amount you're getting scammed isn't worth your time or an attorney's time. But don't let them get away with it.

[1] Texas AG consumer complaints: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/cpd/file-a-consumer-com...

[ransom1538]

> Even disputing a charge on the credit card — they have copies of our ID, smart.

Your credit card company will charge back that charge. AND they will make a note on the merchant's account. More than likely, when you call regarding this merchant account it will already have notes on it -- just making it even quicker.

Once, I paid 2k for a couch on Macys.com. Their delivery guys came to deliver the couch on the agreed day. On that very day - the delivery men called and told me they couldn't get it up the stairs (which was a lie, they needed keys to figure this out). I called Macys support and it was marked delivered WITH MY SIGNATURE and there was nothing that could be done. Upset - I called my credit card company. I had the funds back in my account in 24 hours.

[reustle]

Are you saying they forged your signature?

[M_Grey]

I don't even have a signature. While I can do lovely calligraphy, my actual handwriting is a testament to a failed Rey-Osterrieth complex figure test. Now, that's extreme, but how many people have a stable signature now when they almost never have to reproduce it?

[Bartweiss]

I have been asked to 'reproduce' a signature once in my entire life. At a 7/11, buying $6 worth of food. It took 4 tries to satisfy the cashier, because my signature is completely inconsistent. I almost refused, but I was curious whether I was even capable of signing convincingly.

To this day, I have no idea what drove that decision.

[goldenkey]

Do you never use a CC? Ive drawn smiley faces before. No one really cares unless the charge is high and disputable.

[Bartweiss]

Huh? I use them and sign regularly. I meant that once ever, a cashier actively refused my transaction because she found the signature unconvincing.

That's why I was so baffled by the context - a $2000 computer purchase doesn't get checked, but $6 of cookies got me the wringer.

[howard941]

I try very hard to stabilize it to avoid getting franked at the voting site. (problem: Florida)

[verbify]

Maybe it was one of those 'electronic signatures' - they're simply a scribble on an electronic device.

[chrisper]

So what will you do if it goes to a debt collector?

[toomuchtodo]

Ask them to verify the debt.

https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/collections#wi...

[stale2002]

I could go to a debt collector right now and tell them that you own me money.

But if I do this to though people, I'll go to jail.

[gjjrfcbugxbhf]

It won't.

[akira2501]

4. Go to your state legislature and try to get a bill passed.

What surprises me is that CoreLogic is not bound by the same terms that any other credit reporting bureau is. There is no way any business is going to just write you a letter stating that you currently owe no money, not without talking to a lawyer first, I'd hope.

If they want to impugn your credit with with this type of reporting, then it's their responsibility to ensure its accuracy.

[ben1040]

CoreLogic claims they FCRA doesn't apply to them, because they apparently are a "wholesale" data warehouse that sells data to companies that do background checks, but a federal judge disagreed:

http://www.reuters.com/article/employment-corelogic-idUSL2N1...

[downandout]

There is another major database called Early Warning [1] that also claims to be exempt from certain parts of the FCRA. I was an identity theft victim. After blocking credit checks at all 3 major bureaus and ChexSystems, I contacted these guys and asked them to block any reports they have on me. They essentially said that they don't have to, and won't, despite legislation allowing consumers to request freezing of credit files. I eventually got a nasty voicemail basically inviting me to sue them if I didn't like it.

These specialty databases need serious regulation...it's clear that credit bureaus and those that use them are tired of working within the confines of the FCRA and are going out of their way to create databases that are exempt.

[1] http://earlywarning.com/

[rhizome]

Without any kind of accreditation I wonder if there's a slander angle here.

[nerdponx]

What I'm hung up on is how this isn't considered outright fraud.

[smileysteve]

On cc. You're not disputing that you were there (that in itself would be fraud) but you can dispute that you received services for the payment you madd.

[kbenson]

I would love to see the look on their face if one of the people they had on the hook and about to sign somehow worked into the conversation that their uncle was State Attorney General, or a local District Attorney or something like that.

[wyldfire]

Since there really is a property there, they would probably cleverly slip their application into the "approved" pile.

[kbenson]

That's why you mention it before signing. Then they have to make a decision to accept your application and fees and actually rent their cash cow, or to find some other reason to reject you (for something within their discretion) prior to committing to either scam you or rent to you.

[alexhutcheson]

You don't want a company like this as a landlord.

[saghm]

Wouldn't they notice that they had no neighbors, and that literally every other apartment in the building is being shown multiple times per day?

[kbenson]

I'm pretty sure they rent most the units. It only takes a few empty units to run this scam, no reason not to rent the rest legitimately for more money.

[saghm]

Ah, okay, I just assumed that they were using the building only for the scam, not for actual renting.

[eeeeeeeeeeeee]

Definitely sounds like fraud and I doubt it would be hard to prove. The employee who hangs up immediately likely knows what's going on or was instructed by someone higher up. These people are rarely criminal masterminds.

[lysp]

It 100% is fruad.

[kevinoconnor7]

Given what's in the Medium post, there's zero evidence for that. The author is assuming that a scam took place, but another plausible explanation is that the author had a missed rent payment on their record and the management company auto rejects those applicants. Sure, that record might be wrong, but it's still not a scam. Everything else they mentioned is pure speculation.

I think the author, if they feel strongly about this, should reach out to the local community to try to see how common rejections might be. They would also need to establish that CoreLogic is in cahoots with the management company.

[eloisant]

Even though, when I was living in US and rent from an appartment complex, it took them 5 minutes to clear my credit check on their computer.

Even if the author did in fact miss a payment, why should they be able to keep $250 from an tenant they rejected?

[kodt]

Non refundable application fees are normal. Usually to pay for the credit check. $250 is high though.

[kevinoconnor7]

Usually application fees are separate. Non-refundable deposits are fairly common for taking an apartment off the market while the application and lease are processed.

[throwaway91111]

Well, if they don't actually rent any apartments, they misled them and people spent money based on that lie. They paid for an application that would be accepted. How is that not fraud?

[dsr_]

You don't need to keep all the apartments empty in order to carry on a scam like this, you just need to have one of each type that you're advertising.

You also don't need to actually be the owner of the apartment complex. The property manager can execute this all by herself: keep an apartment open, take the credit card payments directly rather than via the corporate account, deny all the prospective renters.

$17,000/month isn't an amazing amount of money for a corporation that owns apartment buildings, but it's a very nice supplement to the property manager's salary, if she runs it that way.

[tedmiston]

> Well, if they don't actually rent any apartments

Citation needed that they don't actually rent apartments as opposed to the author of the post making this assumption without establishing it with reasonable proof.

[throwaway91111]

You're asking the wrong person; I am assuming OP is not intentionally misrepresenting the situation.

[tedmiston]

I didn't claim that he was intentionally misrepresenting the situation. It's that the author seems inexperienced in renting apartments and is jumping to conclusions as to the reason that he was denied.

It doesn't seem that he has a full understanding of the situation and the process given that, as others have pointed out in this thread, he found things like having a copy of his ID made, etc a red flag while this is normal when touring and applying to rent an apartment.

[jack9]

> Given what's in the Medium post, there's zero evidence for that

Except the stated facts (if you're just gonna call anything posted a fiction, what's the point of stating it's this and not that?). It's certainly not a conviction, but would specifically be evidentiary and a judge can make a ruling from the bench with contingency.

[kevinoconnor7]

Here's my take, there's two parts of this story:

1) Their experience trying to rent a unit. 2) Their outline of the scam.

I'm going to take all of (1) as facts, albeit it's only one side of the story. So maybe parts are missing and it might be biased, but I'll assume the core points are true.

(2) is where things become less factual. A large part of their support for it being a scam comes from two parts: it could be profitable, and it appears they didn't sell any units that week. The problem is just because a scam is profitable doesn't mean it actually took place. If I get shorted change at the deli I can't call it scam simply because it was profitable for them to short me. I would need to show that the problem is systemic to prove that.

The other supporting evidence was that they didn't rent any units that week. The problem is that they don't actually know that. Maybe the website inventory is stale? Maybe they just happened to not lease any units that week or they're still pending lease signing.

So I would say they absolutely got rejected for an apartment due to the report from CoreLogic. Everything beyond that is unsubstantiated and merely circumstantial.

[wunderg]

what convince me otherwise - with deposit paid it should be off the inventory imidiatelly otherwise multiple people can apply simulataneously for the same unit. How would they handle that?

[djyaz1200]

Totally agree with advice above, this is the kind of issue the legal system is made for. Additionally I'd suggest you go file in small claims court today. Suspect they will settle just to avoid the hassle... and if you do it quick you might still get your apt. Good luck.