A.M.S. Realty, Inc.

Please dismiss the complaint received from R[redacted] M[redacted] as the...

issue has been resolved, Mr. M[redacted] requested video footage from our office of the cameras that provide access control for the gates to the property due to his car being stolen on 5/10/2015. Our office was contacted 5/10/2015 by Mr. Marino to report his car stolen and the video footage. On 5/11/15 we instructed him to contact the tow company first in case it was towed due to being parked inappropriately. He instructed us his car bad not been towed but stolen. We offered to have the video footage pulled from the onsite DVR. We explained the cost would be around 200 and we would need to be paid upfront for the service. Mr. M[redacted] agreed and stated he would be by to pay the fee since he needed to provide the video to the police to aid in the recovery of his uninsured vehicle. On 5/13/15 I followed up with him via email for more details and to see if he still wanted the video. He came in later that afternoon and paid the 200 so the video could be pulled. On 5/18/15 we scheduled for personnel to go onsite and watch the video feed for several hours to find when the incident occurred. They were unable to retrieve anything after being their several hours. On 5/19/15 personnel returned onsite to continue to watch the video footage. The incident was found and saved to a thumb drive. Mr. M[redacted] was emailed a copy of the footage. On 5/2015 Mr. M[redacted] stated he could not view the footage with his personal computer and came by the office where we played him the footage.
As for his requested settlement, we feel Mr. M[redacted]s claim against us was made out of emotional anger and frustration due to the situation he was in. We took all the necessary action to assist him and completed the task within 7 business days. He paid 200 which was not what the actual cost should have been as there were two personnel members on site for twelve hours to review and retrieve the video. This cost should have been $1080 ($45x12x2) and we didn’t ask for any additional money to surrender the video. The cameras were approved and installed per the Board of Directors of The Anacapa Walk Homeowners Association that he resides within. If he was interested in the kind of cameras and the costs he could have attended the meeting over 18 months ago when the cameras were discussed and approved.
It is not for AMS Realty, Inc. to provide any further explanation to this owner. If he wishes to know more about the Association he should attend his monthly Board meeting with homeowners who are encouraged to attend.
Sincerely,
S[redacted]
Community Manager

Please dismiss the complaint received from R[redacted] as the issue has been resolved, Mr. M[redacted] requested video footage from our office of the cameras that provide access control for the gates to the property due to his car being stolen on 5/10/2015. Our office was contacted 5/10/2015 by Mr....

Marino to report his car stolen and the video footage. On 5/11/15 we instructed him to contact the tow company first in case it was towed due to being parked inappropriately. He instructed us his car bad not been towed but stolen. We offered to have the video footage pulled from the onsite DVR. We explained the cost would be around 200 and we would need to be paid upfront for the service. Mr. M[redacted] agreed and stated he would be by to pay the fee since he needed to provide the video to the police to aid in the recovery of his uninsured vehicle. On 5/13/15 I followed up with him via email for more details and to see if he still wanted the video. He came in later that afternoon and paid the 200 so the video could be pulled. On 5/18/15 we scheduled for personnel to go onsite and watch the video feed for several hours to find when the incident occurred. They were unable to retrieve anything after being their several hours. On 5/19/15 personnel returned onsite to continue to watch the video footage. The incident was found and saved to a thumb drive. Mr. M[redacted] was emailed a copy of the footage. On 5/2015 Mr. M[redacted] stated he could not view the footage with his personal computer and came by the office where we played him the footage.As for his requested settlement, we feel Mr. M[redacted]s claim against us was made out of emotional anger and frustration due to the situation he was in. We took all the necessary action to assist him and completed the task within 7 business days. He paid 200 which was not what the actual cost should have been as there were two personnel members on site for twelve hours to review and retrieve the video. This cost should have been $1080 ($45x12x2) and we didn’t ask for any additional money to surrender the video. The cameras were approved and installed per the Board of Directors of The Anacapa Walk Homeowners Association that he resides within. If he was interested in the kind of cameras and the costs he could have attended the meeting over 18 months ago when the cameras were discussed and approved.It is not for AMS Realty, Inc. to provide any further explanation to this owner. If he wishes to know more about the Association he should attend his monthly Board meeting with homeowners who are encouraged to attend.Sincerely,S[redacted]Community Manager

Review: AMS mishandled management of our condo per the contract. Their agent, Ms. S. S., allowed departing tenants to depart and fully refunded the security deposit because Ms. S[redacted] was going on vacation and would not be present for the final inspection. As a result, AMS charged us for $500 of damage instead of taking it out of the security deposit. That is the purpose of a security deposit. During a meeting with our new management company and the "new" AMS agent, Alexandria. The AMS agent agreed it was an error on their part, that Ms. S. was dismissed and that our account was mishandled and a refund would be forthcoming. However, Ms. D. W. has steadfastly refused to refund our money. She readily admitted she owed us for a screen door and Guest Pass that the departing tenants did not return and AMS charged us. In November 2012, Ms. W. said she would cut a check to pay us that small portion. She failed to do that. I have contacted AMS on no less than two occasions by mail asking for our full refund. Ms. W. ignores all requests. We are owed:$ 36.42, plumbing$102.90, screen$118.00, remote reprogramming (shouldn't this have been programmed the first time?)$243.00, Emergency rooter$ 8.26, electricity$ 25.00 Guest pass$533.58 TOTALDesired Settlement: Full refund of $533.58.$ 36.42, plumbing$102.90, screen$118.00, remote reprogramming (shouldn't this have been programmed the first time?)$243.00, Emergency rooter$ 8.26, electricity$ 25.00 Guest pass

Review: I live and own my property located at [redacted] Port Hueneme California . and AMS REALITY ARE THE ONES WHO I PAY HOME OWNER ASSOCIATION FEES TO . MY CAR WAS STOLEN FROM THE BACK OF MY HOME LAST SUNDAY ( 5/10/2015 IN THE MORNING ) I FILED A POLICE REPORT , AND POLICE OFFICER ASKED ME TO GET A COPY OF VIDEOTAPE FROM AMS REALITY . I CALLED AMS REALITY AND EMAILED AMS REALITY THEY TOLD ME THEY NEED $200.00 UP FRONT '' FIRST '' BEFORE GIVING ME VIDEO. SO LAST TUESDAY I WENT AND GAVE THEM $200.00 . AFTER I GAVE THEM $200.00 THEY SAID THEY WILL HAVE TO HAVE A TECH COME OUT AND GET COPY OF VIDEO . I HAD EMAILED AMS REALITY OVER THIS PAST WEEKEND . THEY EMAILED ME THIS MORNING AND SAID VIDEO WAS NO GOOD , I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT I PAID $200 .00 FOR , AND REQUESTED TO STILL GET VIDEO , CAUSE THE VIDEO CAMERAS WILL SHOW WHO HAD STOLEN MY CAR .Desired Settlement: I am requesting ''FIRST '' on my money I paid them ( ams reality ) $200.00 to get videotape . and second who had authorized to put those cameras . and we as homeowners should have been explained what kind of video cameras that were going to be installed , and what the cost were . I along with 48 other property owners are paying AMS REALITY ASSOCIATION FEES EVERY MONTH . AND WOULD LIKE A DETAILED EXPLANATION .

Business

Response:

Please dismiss the complaint received from R[redacted] as the issue has been resolved, Mr. M[redacted] requested video footage from our office of the cameras that provide access control for the gates to the property due to his car being stolen on 5/10/2015. Our office was contacted 5/10/2015 by Mr. Marino to report his car stolen and the video footage. On 5/11/15 we instructed him to contact the tow company first in case it was towed due to being parked inappropriately. He instructed us his car bad not been towed but stolen. We offered to have the video footage pulled from the onsite DVR. We explained the cost would be around 200 and we would need to be paid upfront for the service. Mr. M[redacted] agreed and stated he would be by to pay the fee since he needed to provide the video to the police to aid in the recovery of his uninsured vehicle. On 5/13/15 I followed up with him via email for more details and to see if he still wanted the video. He came in later that afternoon and paid the 200 so the video could be pulled. On 5/18/15 we scheduled for personnel to go onsite and watch the video feed for several hours to find when the incident occurred. They were unable to retrieve anything after being their several hours. On 5/19/15 personnel returned onsite to continue to watch the video footage. The incident was found and saved to a thumb drive. Mr. M[redacted] was emailed a copy of the footage. On 5/2015 Mr. M[redacted] stated he could not view the footage with his personal computer and came by the office where we played him the footage.As for his requested settlement, we feel Mr. M[redacted]s claim against us was made out of emotional anger and frustration due to the situation he was in. We took all the necessary action to assist him and completed the task within 7 business days. He paid 200 which was not what the actual cost should have been as there were two personnel members on site for twelve hours to review and retrieve the video. This cost should have been $1080 ($45x12x2) and we didn’t ask for any additional money to surrender the video. The cameras were approved and installed per the Board of Directors of The Anacapa Walk Homeowners Association that he resides within. If he was interested in the kind of cameras and the costs he could have attended the meeting over 18 months ago when the cameras were discussed and approved.It is not for AMS Realty, Inc. to provide any further explanation to this owner. If he wishes to know more about the Association he should attend his monthly Board meeting with homeowners who are encouraged to attend.Sincerely,S[redacted]Community Manager

AMS mishandled management of our condo per the contract. Their agent, Ms. S. S., allowed departing tenants to depart and fully refunded the security deposit because Ms. S[redacted] was going on vacation and would not be present for the final inspection. As a result, AMS charged us for $500 of damage instead of taking it out of the security deposit. That is the purpose of a security deposit. During a meeting with our new management company and the "new" AMS agent, Alexandria. The AMS agent agreed it was an error on their part, that Ms. S. was dismissed and that our account was mishandled and a refund would be forthcoming. However, Ms. D. W. has steadfastly refused to refund our money. She readily admitted she owed us for a screen door and Guest Pass that the departing tenants did not return and AMS charged us. In November 2012, Ms. W. said she would cut a check to pay us that small portion. She failed to do that. I have contacted AMS on no less than two occasions by mail asking for our full refund. Ms. W. ignores all requests. We are owed:$ 36.42, plumbing$102.90, screen$118.00, remote reprogramming (shouldn't this have been programmed the first time?)$243.00, Emergency rooter$ 8.26, electricity$ 25.00 Guest pass$533.58 TOTAL