Dumbarton Place Condominium

I am responding to the complaint filed last summer by Mr [redacted] , who is the owner of two or more Parking Units in the Dumbarton Place Condominium at [redacted] **nd St NW, Washington, D.CHe has written to you to complain that he has been overcharged by being assessed unjustified condominium fees That is not the caseWhen our building was converted from an office building, owned by the Congressional Quarterly, to a condominium, the parking areas on multiple underground levels beneath our building had more parking spaces than would be needed by the residentsThe developer decided to create deeded parking units on the highest of the parking levels and sold those independentlyOwners and lessees access these parking places via a roclicker-operated garage door and through a pedestrian door from O StBeing under the building in an enclosed area provides security and protection against the elements for these parking placesMr [redacted] is the owner of at least two of those deed lotsThere are other parking places assigned to residents on the same and lower floors, and they are partitioned off by a swinging gate that is controlled by clickers issued to resident ownersEach deeded parking unit confers on its owner a 0.06% interest in the condominium, along with the rights to use the parking unit (including leasing it to others) and the obligation to pay an assessment apportioned according to the provisions of the condominium BylawsA copy of the condominium Bylaws, as well as the Rules and Regulations, budgets for three year, and other materials were forwarded to MrDavid Dennis of the Revdex.com on August 14, The assessment of fees is determined by multiple provisions in the Bylaws, which were studied at length in The Parking Unit Owners are being assessed in accordance with those provisions and the 0.06% interest/parking unit of a Parking Unit OwnerThose provisions are sometimes surprising, such as the roof being declared a responsibility of the residents alone, even though it shelters the parking units as wellTo take another example, Mr [redacted] complains about paying for [residents’] “ personal gas and water usage.” He does NOT have to pay for “personal” gas and waterThe Bylaws state, “Section Utility Charges and User FeesThe cost of utilities serving the Condominium not individually metered or submetered to a Unit shall be Common Expenses allocated pursuant to Article V of these Bylaws.” Personal use of gas is metered and is charged to individual residents Parking Unit Owners have to contribute their 0.06% to the Common Expenses, which includes the unmetered gas and waterContrary to Mr [redacted] ’s statements, the Association is charging what is required by our Bylaws, and whether Mr [redacted] believes he benefits or not, he has to meet his obligations to pay legally-defined assessmentsWe wish the condominium Bylaws were written differently, but we have to respect them as they areThe parking unit owners were undercharged for a number of years; we are no longer allowing their threats and complaints to keep them from being properly assessedPlease reconsider the negative grading of the Dumbarton Place Condominium by the Revdex.comFor the Dumbarton Place Condominium Unit Owners Association, RMichael T***, President

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:From: [redacted] <[redacted]>Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:27 PMSubject: complaint # [redacted]To: [redacted] <[redacted]>This is my response for case [redacted], let me know when it is postedMichael T[redacted], 6 months later you are responding to this compliant after you realized your actions (rather, deliberate inaction) are scored and do have accountability to the people of this world. As usual, you're writing this as a self serving and manipulative response after your 100% full-on deceitful and manipulative approach to lie to Revdex.com in order to convince them that the Association was not a business did not work. You decided to respond only after you learned of your well deserved mediocre Revdex.com score and there were people in this world that will hold you accountable. Bottom line, the only real thing that has been established in the past 3 years of dealing with you is that you are a greedy, untrustworthy, careered white collar manipulator.  It really is amazing, that you are this late in the fourth quarter of your life and yet you are playing like you are in the first quarter of it. For what? so you can save yourself a few bucks here and there on your own expenses for screwing Parking people over. The majority of your, 6 month late, response is useless, pointless, and with no substance. 2/3 of it is about background information no cares about. It seems you are ignorant of how Revdex.com works, you're not trying to convince Revdex.com of anything. You're suppose to be addressing me. The point of this is to deal with me, you're suppose to have a direct conversation to the person filing the compliant to resolve things. But the only things that is clear is that you have no idea on how to have a fair and honest dialogue, it's just not in you. The reason why we have to go this route is because of you. The problem is not really the other Board members, you are ultimately the cancer in the whole Board. You are single handedly the problem. I am asking that you resign from office because you have never complied with the basic fiduciary convents that are the foundation of all Associations, that you treat all owners' interest without prejudice. Clearly, in the past 3 years you only do the right thing when you are forced to, when you are repeatedly shown that you are doing things that only benefit certain owners. If you are not going to remove yourself than I want to call on a meeting to remove you. This is my notice for that, should I do it at the annual meeting?You sent a irrevocable agreement to purchase Parking Owners' rights to all parts of the General Common areas that are behind the swing gates. Before we get into that, let's make something very clear, this area is General Common Element, yet you are currently trying to operate it as a Limited Common Element by ignoring repeated requests to unilaterally turn on the access to these areas without any further steps on a owners part.  [redacted], has confirmed, as long as you have the fob codes, access can be immediately turned on by the System Admin without an effort from the fob holder. We both know that and it certainly doesn't require any "programming" as you are trying to manipulate everyone into believing in an effort to limit the usage into these areas. And you certainly cannot ask for extra paperwork in order to realize access to basic General Common Elements that is not how a General Common Elements operates. Just by default ownership these innate access rights cannot be limited in any manner whatsoever by you, the Board, or the Management. Unfortunately, using these deliberate methods is violating the entire foundation of condominium ownership. You are essentially trying to operate the areas behind the swing gates as Limited Common Areas. As a basic level, all fobs in the entire building's [redacted] system should have access to all parts labeled General Common Element, if you can't figure out how to do that in the system, [redacted] said they are willing to help. This is a minimum and mandatory right anyone that has ownership in the building as a right to have for all their fobs they own to work according to the basic General Common Access per the Plat and Plan. Trying to limit that, make new parameters to ask for permission, or maneuver ways to hinder that are deliberate attempts to violate the basic principals of Condominium Ownership. Another glaring issue, is that you are asking Parking Owners to sign over access to these areas behind the swing gates. The problem is that they have never seen the areas that you are asking them to sign over to make any reasonable informed decision. How is this a fair and honest way to do business. You are basically trying to hoodwink everyone to sign over their rights. Clearly, the more you peel away what you are doing, you are clearly not doing your fiduciary duty to all owners.  If you want to have discussions to buy anyone's rights, they need to first have access to those areas to begin with, to know what the heck they are signing away. Again, I am asking to properly operate the building by complying with basic Condominium Ownership rights and allow basic access to all the areas in the building noted as General Common Ares in the Plat and Plan. We can't really have an honest negotiation without you complying with basic Condominium Laws. Again, with General Common Areas, you don't get to dictate it's access,  limit it's usage or demand requests, by default every owner has a innate right to these areas with no interference. I'm sure you know how to turn on the correct doors to comply with basic ownership standard, if you don't, as I have said [redacted] can help you. This should have be done correctly years ago, at least last year when you were aware of the non-compliance and you were charging Parking Owners for non-accessible elevator costs. I have 9 fobs, they are all my property and they all have to be turned on per the Plat and Plan's General Common Element access points. Let me know when they have the correct basic General Common Area access so they can be verified.   If you don't want to abide and correctly operate the building and follow standard condominium laws then this compliant will show that for the record.Back to the agreement that you sent over, how can you have a honest negotiation for buying someone's rights when you're the only person at the table. First, turn on my fobs to abide by basic Condominium Laws that I am granted which gives me unilateral access to all General Common Areas as a basic right from the first day of ownership   Then I can negotiate on my interests. Your offer is too low. You're not just buying away the elevator usage, you're irrevocably buying the usage to a lot of General Common Areas. I can see many instances where access to these area will be useful in the future and it's really none of your business to tell me or anyone that access to these areas is not functionally necessary. Using your mathematical formula the offer would start making more sense at (12 x 0.06% x total annual budgeted elevator expenses for the upcoming year ). I am okay with attaching the formula to the elevator expense because it will accomplish the purpose when the multiplier is fair. Also this formula would have to be applied to the 2017. Because, one, you did not purge the [redacted] system in order to comply with the Plat and Plan. Two, you knowingly charged for non-accessible elevator costs during that time. Three, you completely and deliberately ignored requests to turn on the correct access doors and willingly and deliberately choose to operate the building without complying with basis Condominium Laws. Moving on to the budget, it is necessary to see the Annual Budget in a version (color or separate columns)  every year that clearly shows the separation of the Common Expenses and Residential Expenses. Given the history this is really mandatory. Sending anything else is completely useless, it should not take me 2 months to pull teeth to get this document, that in it self is a violation of the Bylaws). I shouldn't have to file complaints with Revdex.com to get financials that I have every right to see. I have no problem filing more complaints should you continue to not resolve problems or cooperate. As far as the budget, why are we still helping pay for the world's most expensive phone line along with the [redacted] internet which makes absolutely no sense. And why are the Parking Owners paying for your community room's cable and internet bill. If you want to charge Parking Owners for your ridiculous phone expenses why are Parking Owners also paying for your cable bill that is clearly in your gym. I thought this was resolved and taken off so why are we still paying for this?As far as Gas expenses, it's really hard to trust you and the gas meter(s) are in non-accessible areas where I cannot verify what you are saying is true. You are now saying that Parking Owners don't pay for personal use of gas because it is metered and is charged to individual residents. Then the the gas is in fact submetered and you can't use the clause you stated in Sec 6 to to throw the gas costs on Parking Owner because what clause says doesn't agree because the gas is in fact individually metered.  “Section 6. Utility Charges and User Fees. The cost of utilities serving the Condominium not individually metered or submetered to a Unit shall be Common Expenses allocated pursuant to Article V of these Bylaws."  The other problem is that what is $15,500 gas being used for? If it is being used to heat the Residential Common Areas and/or heating water located in the Residential Common Area than it needs to be placed on the Residential Side of expenses. There no natural gas being used in the General Common Areas, it's all cold, there is no water to heat, and you're now saying there are natural gas submeters.  This needs to be on the residential side as the developer of the building original administered. As far as water, again, I'm not able to see the water meter(s) because they are hidden, but if you are saying the individuals pay their own water bill then that would mean that there are sub-meters which would mean there is the same problem as above. So where is $22,500 worth of water going if you're saying that individuals are paying their own water outside of this figure? You need to explain where all this water is going because there is not a drop water to be found in the General Common Areas. Regardless, according to page 3 of the Declaration when something  serves and benefits exclusively the Residential Units  or the Residential Limited Common Elements exclusively, the cost is a Residential Limited Common Expense. 100% of the water is either used by the Residential Units or in the Residential Limited Common Areas clearly that is exclusive usage. You cannot just ignore this clause. Based off the Declaration the same thing would apply to the gas, 100% of the gas is going to 100% usage for the exclusive benefit of the Residential Units or Residential Limited Common Elements. And what is the $16,500 worth of plumbing repairs going towards? Parking Owners don't use any water, if you're trying to throw in this cost as a Common Expense by saying the Resident's sewer lines and water lines that are 100% servicing the residences happen to bypass into Parking areas in the process of going to service the residences is not going to cut it. That's the residence's line, that the residence responsibility, we clearly getting absolutely no benefit from having to see any ugly PVC pipe that residence would be derive 100% of the exclusive function and benefit from. The Declaration does not support this as a Common Expense, because 100% of the servicing is for the exclusive benefit of the Residential Units or the Residential Limited Common Areas that actually have exclusive access to water to use and dispose of. I would not continue working on this case if I did not think what you are doing is wrong and deceitful. There are clearly other expenses that should not be on common expense but clearly you are not a reasonable man to discuss those at this point I will wait until you move on or pass away when a more reasonable person is on Board. In closing, there remains budget issues that are not agreeing with the Declaration. There remains access issues. If you want to negotiate a fair and honest negotiation for buying access rights to the General Common Area behind the swing gates, fine. All the above have to be resolved correctly.  
Regards,
[redacted]

I am responding to the complaint filed last summer by Mr. [redacted], who is the owner of two or more Parking Units in the Dumbarton Place Condominium at [redacted]nd St NW, Washington, D.C. He has written to you to complain that he has been overcharged by being assessed...

unjustified condominium fees.  That is not the case. When our building was converted from an office building, owned by the Congressional Quarterly, to a condominium, the parking areas on multiple underground levels beneath our building had more parking spaces than would be needed by the residents. The developer decided to create 21 deeded parking units on the highest of the parking levels and sold those independently. Owners and lessees access these parking places via a roll-up clicker-operated garage door and through a pedestrian door from O St.. Being under the building in an enclosed area provides security and protection against the elements for these parking places. Mr. [redacted] is the owner of at least two of those deed lots. There are other parking places assigned to residents on the same and lower floors, and they are partitioned off by a swinging gate that is controlled by clickers issued to resident owners. Each deeded parking unit confers on its owner a 0.06% interest in the condominium, along with the rights to use the parking unit (including leasing it to others) and the obligation to pay an assessment apportioned according to the provisions of the condominium Bylaws. A copy of the condominium Bylaws, as well as the Rules and Regulations, budgets for three year, and other materials were forwarded to Mr. David Dennis of the Revdex.com on August 14, 2017. The assessment of fees is determined by multiple provisions in the Bylaws, which were studied at length in 2016. The Parking Unit Owners are being assessed in accordance with those provisions and the 0.06% interest/parking unit of a Parking Unit Owner. Those provisions are sometimes surprising, such as the roof being declared a responsibility of the residents alone, even though it shelters the parking units as well. To take another example, Mr. [redacted] complains about paying for [residents’] “ personal gas and water usage.” He does NOT have to pay for “personal” gas and water. The Bylaws state, “Section 6. Utility Charges and User Fees. The cost of utilities serving the Condominium not individually metered or submetered to a Unit shall be Common Expenses allocated pursuant to Article V of these Bylaws.” Personal use of gas is metered and is charged to individual residents.  Parking Unit Owners have to contribute their 0.06% to the Common Expenses, which includes the unmetered gas and water. Contrary to Mr. [redacted]’s statements, the Association is charging what is required by our Bylaws, and whether Mr. [redacted] believes he benefits or not, he has to meet his obligations to pay legally-defined assessments. We wish the condominium Bylaws were written differently, but we have to respect them as they are. The parking unit owners were undercharged for a number of years; we are no longer allowing their threats and complaints to keep them from being properly assessed. Please reconsider the negative grading of the Dumbarton Place Condominium by the Revdex.com. For the Dumbarton Place Condominium Unit Owners Association, R. Michael T[redacted], President