My apt. manager apparently stole tens of thousands from my landlord and fled the country. He obviously had access to *every* piece of financial info i've got -- SS#, checking acct., all prior addresses, mom's maiden name. I called my bank and TU (to start) to alert them. I was trying to do some preventative medicine w/TU, but they told me I have to call the police. She said she can flag my acct. , but I won't ever get "instant credit' on anything again, or I can just check my report every year to see if there fraudulent activity. Has anyone else had anything like this happen? It's turning into a huge hassle.
From what I understand, you would not want to get your account flagged, if you are trying to do your own credit cleanup. It makes it exceedingly difficult to dispute regular old inaccuracies. So. Since you're already interested in keeping a clear picture of your credit situation, I would think keeping a close watch on your reports would be a much better option--perhaps enroll in the credit monitoring services discussed in the FAQ. By monitoring for fraudulent activity on your own, it seems to me that you'd be protecting your options best. Obviously this is just my opinion, though, and I am not legally in-the-know at all. Perhaps others will have something to add...
I agree alchemist, I would not let them flag my account, unless it was a last resort. Just sign up for the monitoring services and watch your reports. If it were me, I would check my reports daily. (But I am just paranoid and do that anyway
Thanks everyone. I'll just sit on it and not have the account flagged (I wouldn't be surprised if flagging your account lowers your score, anyway!)
Perhaps the landlord shares some responsibility. If the landlord hired this person and gave him access to very sensitive personal/financial information without doing a background check--this would be negligent hiring. Would you suspect this individual had any previous criminal record? Call the police but don't let your landlord off the hook.
I view the landlord as having the ultimate responsibility in this! Do you really think I should call the police? What do you mean about not letting my landlord off the hook?
The landlord is responsible...in some form or another, at least. I'm not sure it is something that the police can do something about (with regard to the landlord at least), but the onus is still on the company, which the landlord controls, owns and manages, to protect the private information of each customer/tenant. The problem here is that the true damages associated with this are not yet known. I would think that the person(s) affected by this criminal action should keep very, very good records in the weeks and months ahead. Any damage associated with this problem should be detailed and at some point I would think that he/she would have a civil case against the landlord. Buckets
Put the alert on your report for goodness sakes. It stays on for at most 6 months unless you renew it. It's a fraud alert and it's worth it. It will not harm your score nor hamper your repairing efforts. In fact I almost believe it helps in disputing (especially with "not mine") DH had one put on and his derogs came off with ease, easier than mine. I'm not saying everyone should run out and do it, just stating experience.
Basically, Buckets answered the question. Get a police report for YOUR protection. You may need this in the unfortunate event that this person should use the information he has stolen and you are forced to clear your name. You can report your credit cards as stolen and will be issued a new one with a different number. You can close your checking account and open another. Again--new number. Did he steal tens of thousands from the landlord and none from you (yet)? If he has stolen anything from you--you are correct--the landlord is responsible.
As a landlord, i'm really taken aback by these suggestions of suing the landlord. there was never any suggestin, that the thief was hired friviously. At this point it appears as if the landlord is the injured party, so to just say go ahead and sue him is exactly what makes this such a litigeous society and what creates a lot of problems in this country. What about fairness? What about looking at both sides? Suing the landlord may destroy his and his family's life just for the chance, that maybe you'll come to harm in the future.
Sorry for any misunderstanding. My suggestion was that the landlord may be at fault. It is not unreasonable to expect your landlord to take some very basic care (like running a background check) before hiring someone who will have access to very personal confidential information. If you take your children to a daycare, you would hope that every employee there has undergone a thorough background check.
Listen, I hate trial lawyers as much (if not more) than the next guy, but the owner of a business is responsible for making sure that the personal information on customers is well kept and maintained. It should never be used for illegal means and if an employer hires someone who performs an illegal act that produces damages against a customer while employed for that businessman, there is liability involved. Also, the onus is on the business owner to protect that data. I see nothing wrong with asking for the landlord to pay for damages (if any exist in the future as a result of what happened) and punitive damages if the damages are extreme. If the landlord does not agree, then that is what the court system is for and that is what liability insurance is for. Buckets
snip As a landlord, i'm really taken aback by these suggestions of suing the landlord. there was never any suggestin, that the thief was hired friviously. snip Being a landlord is being in biz. This is why you have errors and ommisons and liability insurance. If you hired a klutz who broke a bunch of crystal in my apartment and he was working for you . You would be liable .. not because you didn't check that the employee was klutz and failed the clumsy test. It's because you are in biz and this is one of the risks, you are responsible for the actions of your employee's. Without these laws imagine where we would be .. All the CRA's and CA's would be screaming not my fault it's the emplyee that did it.. No recalls because the employee did it.. So if you had some work done and it was substandard and the other biz said oh it was a lousy employee, so just deal with it . Would that be a satisfactory result ? I think not. Don't take the term landlord personally I am sure the poster meant dealing with the " biz"
Yep: Blame it on the land lord it's always his fault. Buckets you are amazing. You are doing the same thing with landlords that you say I'm doing with bankers and insurers. Why should landlords be held in lower esteem than insurers and bankers?? LB 59
If a bank or insurance company violates the law or commits damages against a person or customer, then I say you should seek to recover damages. Same thing goes for landlords. There is no difference in policy there. On the other hand, if a banker, insurance company and/or landlord do not do anything against the law and/or produce damages in the normal course of business, then there's nothing wrong with what they are doing. You were blaming insurance companies and bankers for the reason that a whopping 80% of retirees (as you purported) were in poverty (when the actual figure is more like 9% to 11%). You blamed them soley for this. If they are sending people into the poor house with illegal actions, negligence or if they are doing things that aren't disclosed to the consumer up front, then they are at fault. Again, I'm not being inconsistent. The average banker and insurance company merely offers a service that the consumer, a service the consumer can either use or not use...it's their choice. You don't have to pay for interest and bank fees if you don't purchase a loan and you don't have to pay for insurance if you don't purchase it. But a landlord, who doesn't protect the the personal data of his or her tenants AND is negligent in his her actions (or lack thereof), should be liable for damages. There is a big difference between a landlord who doesn't perform due diligence and a banker or insurance company who offers services that you feel is raping the elderly (especially when they have the choice to use the service or not). You expect the banks to (1) loan money to any consumer, regardless of their propensity to pay it back, (2) loan money to any consumer who wants it at little or no interest rate, (3) not make a profit themselves, (4) not seek payment for loans that are unpaid, (5) not seek penalties for loans that aren't paid--as a form of deterence against dead beats who want to take advantage of the system and make it more expensive for the rest of us, and (6) to not charge fees for services so they can make money, which as a result increases its value to its shareholders (and you might be one if you have money in a mutual fund--so if you maintain this belief, don't bitch if the value of your mutual fund goes down). When it comes to insurance, you believe the U.S. government should pay for every accident and every illness and every medical need for every consumer. You don't believe in a pay-as-you-go system that puts the onus on each individual to pay for his or her own way. Because as your motto says, it's not your fault your in credit hell, it's the fault of everyone else. You bear no responsibility for your actions. You are a perpetual victim and always will be. Buckets
wow. A lot of new posts here. re: the landlord's liability -- the apt. manager/thief has copies of all of our apt. keys -- the landlord (who's an attorney, btw)is not only not changing our locks, he is not returning anyone's phone calls re: our biz papers and locks. If a tenant is robbed or harmed when the landlord has full knowledge that a felon has not only all of our financial info, but our apt. keys(!), i'm assuming he'd be in a mess o' trouble. I was understanding before... after all, I thought the landlord was the victim. I really resent being put in jeopardy re: the unchanged locks, though.
How do you know the thief has left the country? Personally, I would be scared as h*ll knowing that this guy is on the loose and still has access to my home. Change the locks yourself. No reasonable person would be expected to live under these circumstances. If your landlord is an attorney--he is an incredible moron. By not changing the locks and taking reasonable steps to mitigate any further loss from his tenants, he is opening himself up to major potential liability should the embezzler/mgr. return for more loot. I'm appalled that he would knowingly risk the safety and security of his tenants over a few bucks for new lock cores.
I'm going to change the locks myself, although of course there are legal hassles with that as I'm not the owner of the building, therefore don't have a right to change my own locks. My landlord is an attorney. He has no plans to change the locks. I called the police and a report has not been filed (by the landlord) yet. They also told me that the landlord's complaint (if he ever files) will be *my* case number -- that I shouldn't file on my own as the CRA's told me to do. I'm going to list all of my complaints to the landlord in a certified letter so there's at least a record if something comes back to bite me down the road. Of course he just has a PO Box, so not sure hwo that'll work.
