Connected Property Management, LLC

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 14, 2015/06/12) */
The complainant's apparent family member, *** ***, was listed in our system as the owner of unit *** within the ***-*** Condominium Association, which we do manageIt should be noted that any and all payments made by unit owners
within an association get electronically deposited directly into the bank account of the condominium associationFunds never get deposited into bank accounts in the name of Connected Management and are never held (even for an instant) by Connected ManagementIf any funds were taken from the owner's account by error and deposited into a destination account, which did not happen in this case, those funds would have been deposited into the bank account owned by the ***-*** Condominium Association
Specific to this issue, the owner sold the unit on or around Nov-There were multiple issues related to the sale of their unit, having nothing to do with Connected Management (we do not play any role in the buying or selling of real estate)This confusion and lack of information to our firm did allow two automated Epayments (the complainant signed up for this auto-debit service) to be initiated as the complainant detailed, but the processing bank denied both payments since the account details did not match(Due to a mismatch of owner names) Since both payments were denied by the bank, funds were never deposited into the Association's bank account (Certainly never deposited into a bank account owned by Connected Management per the explanation above) and the complainant's bank credited her account for the full amount of both paymentsThis rejection and re-crediting of her account occurred automatically by the complainant's bankThe complainant will verify this is the case
Due to this, the documented desired resolution of "Refund all of the money illegally withdrawn" not only suggests an act that did not occur, but is simply not possible since the complainant was re-credited all funds by her bankThe complainant should not be missing any of her money

We have reviewed the form submitted by this owner to have her auto epayment modifiedThis request was properly implemented using the dates and amounts entered in the form by the ownerThis is for the payment of the owner's monthly assessment to the condo association. After the
most recent auto epayment was processed, the owner apparently contacted her bank to have the transaction cancelled, which triggered the "returned payment" within our systemsThe owner signed an agreement when signing up for epayments in which she agreed that she would be responsible for a fee ** *** if her payment was returned for any reasonThis is the same fee that we are charged by the payment processor when a payment is returned. That stated, we will agree to *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** absorb the feeThe owner will not be allowed to make any future payments through our epayment systems, however, since she is not adhering to the agreement that she signedThe current auto epayment in place will be terminated so that no future payments are made through this channelAll future payments must be made via personal check mailed to our office

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: The company states that they responded to my request to modify the autodebit, which is incorrect and incompleteI submitted TWO requests to modify the autodebit, the first one was received via the website and I was told to wait to be contactedAfter no one contacted me, I had to contact the company to confirm the modificationThe company stated that they had received the request and the change was made and I would not be charged the excessive amountHOWEVER, the change was NOT made and I was still charged the excessive amount ($225)After which I contacted them again to secure a refundThey refused and told me I had to submit another request to modify the autodebit, which I did and which was completed. The company completely disregarded my first request to modify the autodebit, which resulted in excessive fees being charged to my accountThey then refused to refund the excessive fee, which forced me to dispute the charge with my bankThe company now seeks to make it even more difficult to accurately pay my bill by restricting my access to their regular payment methodsI WILL NOT be punished for their error.
Sincerely,
S ***

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 14, 2015/06/12) */
The complainant's apparent family member, [redacted], was listed in our system as the owner of unit [redacted] within the [redacted] Condominium Association, which we do manage. It should be noted that any and all payments made by unit...

owners within an association get electronically deposited directly into the bank account of the condominium association. Funds never get deposited into bank accounts in the name of Connected Management and are never held (even for an instant) by Connected Management. If any funds were taken from the owner's account by error and deposited into a destination account, which did not happen in this case, those funds would have been deposited into the bank account owned by the [redacted] Condominium Association.
Specific to this issue, the owner sold the unit on or around Nov-2014. There were multiple issues related to the sale of their unit, having nothing to do with Connected Management (we do not play any role in the buying or selling of real estate). This confusion and lack of information to our firm did allow two automated Epayments (the complainant signed up for this auto-debit service) to be initiated as the complainant detailed, but the processing bank denied both payments since the account details did not match. (Due to a mismatch of owner names) Since both payments were denied by the bank, funds were never deposited into the Association's bank account (Certainly never deposited into a bank account owned by Connected Management per the explanation above) and the complainant's bank credited her account for the full amount of both payments. This rejection and re-crediting of her account occurred automatically by the complainant's bank. The complainant will verify this is the case.
Due to this, the documented desired resolution of "Refund all of the money illegally withdrawn" not only suggests an act that did not occur, but is simply not possible since the complainant was re-credited all funds by her bank. The complainant should not be missing any of her money.