Very often, consumer disputes begin with a telephone call. However, not all telephone calls from consumers are made to dispute the accuracy of information on the report. In fact, my experience has been that the overwhelming majority of consumer calls are not disputes – they are simply a means of venting frustration or anger. Common themes of these telephone calls include:

“My lawyer said that wouldn’t be on my record.” (Most often heard in relation to deferred adjudication dismissals.)

“That conviction was fifteen years ago, how am I supposed to ever get a job?”

“I don’t understand why the employer had a problem with that!”

“Sure, I was fired from that job but my supervisor never gave me a chance.”

None of these themes are disputes of the accuracy of the information on the report. They all involve circumstances outside of the control of the screening firm. However, I relish these telephone calls. In fact, I encourage all of our clients to routinely refer these sorts of consumers’ calls to us.

Before writing me off as a masochist, consider this: Who is in a better position than the screening firm to assist the consumer in the future - the employer who has already made the decision not to hire them or the screening firm who provided the report?  We know that consumers don’t read the FTC-prescribed statement of the consumer rights and, if they did, they’d probably be even more confused. Few of our employer clients can accurately explain how research is conducted nor do they want to be in the uncomfortable position of listening to the consumer’s litany of extenuating circumstances.

If these “no dispute” telephone calls are handled well, the consumer is more likely to feel that he was treated fairly which may help preserve or improve the community’s perception of the employer. I see this as a value-added service we provide our clients.

So, whenever a consumer call is received, they are routed directly to me. The caller is told that they are being transferred to the firm’s president. Before the consumer has an opportunity to begin questioning my parentage, I explain in a very calm and empathetic voice that our firm goes to great lengths to verify the accuracy of all information prior to making a report to our clients, however we are always concerned that even the slightest mistake could mischaracterize an employment applicant and we never want to cause one of our employer clients to miss out on a great job applicant because of any error we might have made. I then ask if he will give me the file number on his report so that I can look it up while he is on the phone.

Typically, this immediately deescalates the situation. The consumer called expecting to get the run around from disinterested customer service clerks and instead is speaking to the firm’s president who is expressing a genuine interest in helping him. And, the truth is, I am genuinely interested in helping consumers. As proud as I am of the important service we provide our clients, I also recognize that most consumers with problems in their background are not bad people and it is important that they be treated as persons of dignity.

Before the call proceeds, I explain that we take consumers’ privacy very seriously and I want to be certain that I am really talking to the consumer. I thank him for verifying his address, date of birth, and social security number (which is truncated on our reports). Again, we are talking about neutral topics and he is given more small opportunities to release his emotion rather than in one long explosion about how “your report ruined my life.”

The next step determines if this is a “just venting” call or an actual consumer dispute. I say, “Okay, I have your report in front of me. What item is incorrect?” Again, I am not defensive nor am I giving him the run around.

If this is a “just venting” call, then the consumer will often be flummoxed by this question. Up to this point, he probably hasn’t considered whether or not the report was correct – he only knows that it has cost him a job opportunity.

After a few moments, though, he’ll often explain that the problem isn’t really the accuracy of the report but… insert extenuating circumstances here. I will listen to his entire statement without any interjection or comment. When he is finished, I will give him two beats of silence before using the active listening technique of concisely restating his issue. For example:

“Just to make sure that I understand everything, the report we provided XYZ Company is technically correct, but…

• “Your lawyer told you that the case wouldn’t be on your record after you completed the deferred adjudication program.
• “You’re surprised that a fifteen year old criminal record was reported.
• “You’re surprised that the employer cared about that relatively minor criminal conviction/how you misrepresented your education background/the discrepancies in your employment history.
• “The basic information provided by the former employer doesn’t tell the whole story.

“Is that correct?”

By agreeing, the consumer is again confirming that the report was accurate and this is a “just venting” call. However, if he says anything in direct contrast with the report, I will be sure that we revisit that issue on the report, explaining that I want to be sure that our report is accurate or make sure it gets corrected. Often, given an opportunity, the applicant will stray from the basic facts to better characterize the issues in their background. Calling attention to any small discrepancies gets them back on target.

Next, I explain that we don’t make the hiring decisions for our clients but, in general, I can share some basic observations related to the consumer’s situation that may help in future job applications. Most often, I warn them that because most employers are conducting background checks, they always want to be fully forthcoming about their background on the employment application and during the job interview.

I also share my belief that most applicants who are not hired because of our background investigations are not eliminated because of the nature of the information in the report but because the employer thought they weren’t being truthful when completing the employment application or during the interview. I often encourage them to take certified court copies with them to job interviews so that when the issue of a background investigation arises, they can proactively lay all the cards on the table by providing case documentation. If the background investigation is going to eventually uncover the information, the applicant might as get it over with.

Throughout the whole conversation, I am sure to take very good notes, which will be included in the consumer’s file. Even with a “just venting” call, you never know when you’ll need a reliable recollection of the conversation.

Every consumer’s situation is different but my goal with each one is to ensure that they feel they were treated with respect, which will reflect well on my firm, my clients, and our profession.