Much has been written and discussed of late about an unexpected and unintended consequence of recent and well intentioned do-not-call legislation that was enacted to keep unwelcome sales calls from bothering consumers. 

It should come as no surprise to anyone that many well intended laws and government initiatives designed to further the well being of some group or special interest, bring in their wake unintended consequences that give us reason for pause.  Such may be the case concerning the recent "do-not-call" legislation.  If you have not yet heard, there is reason that we all need to get our do-not-call policy statements updated and in good order.   Our employees and Property Managers then need to be fully briefed concerning these policies. 

It seems an enterprising "consumer advocate" may have seen an opportunity for himself to make an easy buck off business such as ours with a scheme designed to make money out of our reluctance to get involved with any issue or anything at all that might have the appearance of being on "the wrong side of the law".   In fairness, this "consumer advocate" claims to have done nothing wrong except to bring errant companies to heel and to get them to comply with the law.  The issue is currently being resolved in court. 

For our purposes, it is good to understand the situation to the end that we will not find ourselves in any jeopardy whatsoever concerning this well intentioned legislation. 

The self proclaimed "advocate" allegedly developed a scheme whereby he targeted businesses which often use various telemarketing processes to get new clients.  This "advocate" then may have baited a great many companies such as yours and mine with compliance questions and demanded to see their "do-not-call policies within five days.  He appears to have hoped to contact unsuspecting administrative employees who had not been well briefed on this important policy statement.  

If the company so targeted didn't provide the requested document the "advocate" then sent letters to them preparatory to initiating a lawsuit.  He simultaneously offered an option of "settling" the matter for a small fee, usually on the order of $1,000 to $5,000. 

It doesn't take a PhD to recognize that in the same circumstances, most of us would just pay the fee to get rid of the problem.  This is what the advocate seems to have planned.  And, he was quite successful.  

It has been estimated that he made a six-figure job for himself at the expense of many legitimate small business owners and some who may have been skirting the law.    He pulled this off for over five years.  A cool half million dollars, for suing "negligent, egregious and law-breaking companies".  Not bad - except for those companies he may have defrauded. 

What our enterprising advocate might not have considered, however, is that there are many highly ethical real estate and property management companies that simply do not like to get ripped off as a matter of principle.  It may have been his undoing when he allegedly solicited such a real estate company with his allegedly fraudulent scheme.

On December 11, 2006, the real estate company concerned filed a complaint against the "consumer advocate" seeking an injunction to protect themselves from his allegedly coercive actions and threats of lawsuit.  The company, joined with its franchisor, RE/MAX International, the National Association of Realtors and the American Bankers Association and issued advisories throughout their organizations concerning the alleged actions of the "consumer advocate" warning their members and employees to be sure everyone is up to date on their do-not-call policies and procedures.  You and I are well advised to do the same.   It would now seem prudent to review our do-not-call policies to be sure they are in ship-shape. 

On another similar front, new legislation is in the making that might soon have unintended consequences for Property Managers.  Indiana has patterned a new law after the existing "do not call" legislation making the sending of unsolicited faxes a "deceptive consumer practice" punishable by fines up to $1,500 per unwanted fax. 

The wheels of "progress" move forward, always forward with new legislation that will take us somewhere, but not necessarily where we thought we wanted to go.  

Just keep your eyes open, for the actions of one state often migrate rapidly from state to state.  It will probably not be long before we are all looking at state proposals to limit the use of faxes in our marketing efforts in our own states.

NOTE:   I wrote the above article that was published in the March 07 Edition of Residential Resource, Legislative Scoop.  I am personally submitting this article in this web page.   Jerry Bangerter, RA, Property Manager, RE/MAX Kai Lani