FirstService Residential Minnesota, Inc.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/07/07) */
The complainant owns a condominium unit in an association for which our firm is the management agentThe interactions noted in the complaint, which are grossly misstated, stem from a concern expressed by the owner of the unit below hers which
was experiencing water damage from a plumbing leak in her unitAfter nearly two weeks of the leak not being repaired or notification provided to us of it being scheduled and, with prior notice, a plumber was scheduled and the repair completed to protect the property of the unit owner below from further damagesThe owners association has the obligation to protect the property from damages that are being caused by the inaction of other owners in the building and was rightful in completing the repairThe fines and charges noted in the desired resolution portion of the complaint form are unrelated to this matter and stem from repeated past noncompliance with the association's governance
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/07/08) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The appointment with the plumber was scheduled by firstService Residential even after the informing that I had an appointment with the plumberI can provide proof for thisThere was no further damage was being caused since the water was completely shut off and the bathroom was not being usedmy plumber was half way with the repair alreadyover that when I try to ask justification, the employee, *** yells and hangs up the phoneshe being a service person, need to have service mind and resolve the issue and not shut off the phone without a resolutionalso I am requesting for a meeting with the board of directors which I am being denied for no reasons, her responsibility is to provide smooth communication between the owners and the Board of Directors and not to make it further difficult
Final Business Response /* (4000, 14, 2015/08/03) */
The property manager waited two weeks before scheduling / completing the plumbing workThe complainant's plumber was apparently only available on occasional evenings and could not provide a time line for completionThe partial repair that has been noted consisted of wrapping a towel around the pipe that was leakingA meeting with the Board of Directors was offered within a specified time frame and was in regard to monetary penalties that have been assessed for repeated prior unrelated noncompliance with the association's governanceA meeting with the Board of Directors to review this matter will be offered to the complainant

We believe that our communication was clear and concise. Our representative provided the account # and mailing address, stated that there are options to pay online through a 3rd party and fees may apply. At no time was one method of payment preferred over the otherMs*** was provided a statement via email as well as mailed statements monthly. The back of the statements provide the payment options available. Payment by mail was her choice and not a requirement
There is no method for us to verify when payments were mailed. Based on the date of the checks that were received, the payments took six business days to post to her account. We recommend owners allow a minimum of 3-business days for online payments and more for mailed payments due to factors involved with third party service providers’ processes and USPS
Regardless of how payments are applied the payment plan specified that the agreement payment amount should post to her account each month until her account is current. No payment posted in March
The communication to Ms*** on February 3, stated that upon completion of the payment plan (zero balance) she could provide a request for fee removal. She could specify specific charges or a dollar amount. The request would be reviewed and notification provided when a decision was been reached by the Board. At no time was fee removal offered. The option to request fee removal was offered
The letters sent from a “third party debt collection name” were from the office of the attorney that provides collection service for the association. They do provide a name and contact at our firm in their letter for discussion of payment options. All the required FDCPA debt verbiage is noted on the letters

I am rejecting this response because:Here are responses and proof attached:Firstly, FirstResidential stated that "The complainant asserted that the HVAC unit within his unit was damaged by the water leak on despite waiting nearly days to report this matter to the management office."This is completely inaccurateI have attached the exact timeline (RepairsTimeline.pdf) from my tenantAs you can see, the issue was reported on May 25th, (email exchanges attached)Not days after as FirstResidential claimsFurther,to prove that FirstResidential is making incorrect claims, please see the below emails:a) Per attached email, FirstResidential already had crew working on the leak related damage according to the email dated June 7thFirstResidential is incorrectly stating that I waited days to report the matter to the management office when it is clear from the email evidence that this not the case, and that FirstResidential themselves were well aware from the beginning.There are a few points that triggered as red flags for me since the beginning:Issue #1: Until date, Melissa from FirstResidential simply always said that the amount should not be on the HOA and repeatedly said that the amount is being processed with Insurance, but I have not even received one single email or reply in this whole time-frame from Melissa stating that the claim was ever deniedExhibits response highlighted from Melissa “Claim submitted to insurance email.pdf dated 09/13/2017” and response highlighted from Melissa “Shouldnot Have Posted to HOA.pdf dated Oct 6th, 2017”, Also, as you can see from the email attached, Melissa choose not to reply to my question that I repeatedly asked regarding why I was never informed of an $repair prior.Issue #2: For me to get the flooring and walls repaired replaced due to the leak, Melissa refused to have any work performed until Insurance provided funds to proceed forwardI had to wait weeks for the flooring to be replacedHowever, ironically, in the case of the AC spring replacement, an ~$amount repair was somehow performed without waiting for any insurance approvalAnd more suspiciously the claim was supposedly applied for after the repair and not prior like all other repairs due to the leak.Issue #3: An individual/company that Melissa authorized for the repair of the spring, never provided a quotation and with the help of Melissa, they had the amount tied to the HOA billThis amount had nothing to do with the HOA feesMelissa herself admitted that this amount should have never been tied to the HOAThe individual/company that Melissa authorized supposed wrote a note in their work that there was self-tampering involvedMy tenant is not an electrician and has made it clear that there is no reason for him to even attempt self-repair on the unit that he is renting for an AC vent issue.I have copied the tenant (Ryan) in the email in case you need to hear his observations and clear facts about the timeline that the corporation FirstResidential is incorrectly statingRepairs were only occurring in the unit as part of the leak from the unit upstairs as you can see from the emails attached.Regards,*** ***The below documentation has been attached:1) Claim submitted to insurance email.pdf (dated: Sept 13th, 2017)2) Exact timeline provided by Tenant.pdf3) Should not have Posted to HOA.pdf (dated: Oct 6th, 2017)4) Repairs email from Tenant.pdf (dated: Aug 14th, 2017)5) Reply from Tenant.pdf (dated: Jan 25th, 2018)6) Tenant reporting that AC spring replacement is taking place as part of the leak.pdf (dated: June 7th, 2017)7) Water Leak Repair Email.pdf (dated: June 12th, 2017)8) Tenant Timeline.jpg

FirstService Residential is the management company for the homeowner association of which the complainant is a member. As the association's managing agent, it is our duty to administer the association’s responsibilities, including the collection of the monthly assessment payments for the
association from each of the homeowners, and, at all times, are acting under the authority and at the direction of the association’s Board of DirectorsThe complainant’s allegation of a loss of mature shade trees due to management negligence is unfounded. Any and all decisions with regard to the treatment and / or removal of trees from the property rests solely with the association's Board of Directors. The complainant’s association assessment account has been charged a total of $4,in legal fees since January 2016, as a result of three separate lien foreclosure actions against their unit for their failure to timely pay their association assessments. The association’s governing documents provide that these costs of collection shall be borne by the individual homeowner Once the process of collection has moved to this stage, all communication relating to same must be directed to the association’s attorneyFinally, the comment regarding the alleged “strange and private relationship” to which the complainant refers is, at best, scurrilous, potentially actionable, and totally without basis

“We are continuing to work with the complainant on open, unresolved matters.”

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/06/23) */
We are in receipt of the Revdex.com complaint dated June 1, 2015 which we received in our office in early June. We are responding to the complaint submitted to the Revdex.com.
Our response to this complaint is as follows:
1. Complaint 1. "FirstService...

Residential is responsible for the operations of our neighborhood pool. They don't do the work and don't give us timelines."
a. Response: Our company is the management company for the [redacted] Owners' Association. Our company is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the [redacted] Owners' Association under the direction of the Board of Directors. We do not in fact directly provide the pool or gate maintenance services or most services for the operations of the Association. These services are primarily provided by contractors. In this instance, the gate to the pool was not properly locking which represents a potential life safety issue. We called the vendor promptly, they responded in 48 hours, and determined that they were not able to make the necessary repair. An alternative service provider was there within 24 hours thereafter and fixed the problem. Until such time as we had a timeline from the vendors we were not able to publish a timeline or keep this pool open.
2. Complaint 2. "FirstService is required to provide service to manage our pools. They have opted to use a subcontractor last year and the problem with our door was never fixed. "
a. Response: We are not required to provide service but to subcontract for service which is what we do. We do actually provide direct pool services at some associations and would be happy to explore this option with the Board of Directors. The issue with the pool, however, is one with the original construction of the gate and shifting of the gate support poles and may require a more permanent fix during the off season. We have sent a design for this to the Board of Directors to consider. Absent a permanent fix, the gate is likely to continue to be a problem in the future.
3. Complaint 3. "What are we paying for? They collect funds from us quarterly but we receive no timely service for the items that they are required to manage."
a. The vast majority of the funds paid to the homeowner association in the form of dues is utilized to provide direct services to the Association. We do not agree with the assertion that the homeowners receive no timely service. We recognize that in this instance the homeowner was frustrated with the down time of the pool. We are also aware that this issue predated our management services at [redacted]. We are at the Association three times per week during the seasonal months and will continue to monitor the operations of the Association to support the desired quality of life of the Association members and in a manner consistent with our management agreement with the Association.
4. Complaint 4. "What are we paying them to do? It is stealing when you take money and provide no
services.
a. We are providing an array of supervision and services to the Association and its Board of
Directors and conducting site visits three times per week. We did experience a few bumps in transition as one of our Association Managers went on maternity leave but based on most of the feedback we have received, the new team has responded to that and done very well. We are providing services and are not stealing. Accusations of same are inflammatory and defamatory as they are demonstrably false.
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Very truly yours,
FirstService Residential Minnesota, Inc.
Mark [redacted] President

I am rejecting this response because:Clear communication regarding where to send payments was not received.  Online payment was discouraged and stated to include an additional costly fee.payments mailed have taken over 2 weeks to post to account.  March's payment due by 3/31 was not posted until 4/5/16, but was mailed and dated on 3/28/16.  Payment was posted without any questions. 3 weeks later on 4/28/16 a threatening letter and $170 of additional fines were added to the account, prior to the April due date.  When questioned, FS residential stated it was due to Marchs payment not being received, payments posted out of order in newest to oldest fashion.  2 days later an annual late fee was added for 2016 dues despite having paid 2.25 times that amount prior to this fee, implying a payment posting practice of oldest to newest. Fs residential has not answered questions regarding payment posting processes.  FS residential has added fees in addition to annual late payment fee that are not in our contract.  FS residential stated to me that they would remove these fees after  payment plan was completed.  I have completed payment plan over 2 months early for all the original balance.  FS residential will not answer why they now are not honoring that original agreement.   Fs fa residential sent letters from a debt collector third party name/using other name enticing me to contact FS residential's staff members directly for questions payments and disputes, this staff then engaged in abusive and deceptive collection practices, third party attorney debt collector was not involved or directing this process meaning FS residential is subject to fdcpa.

FirstService Residential is the management company for the homeowners association of which the complainant is a member.  It is our responsibility to collect the monthly assessment payments for the association from each of the homeowners.   The complainant alleges an improper late fee...

being assigned to their assessment account and subsequent inappropriate collection action for nonpayment of the late fee.   Complainant’s payment for the month in question was initiated through Paylease, a third party service provider, two days prior to the payment deadline.  Paylease transferred the funds to the association’s account though they did not arrive and, therefore, were not credited to the account, until after the deadline and, therefore, a late fee was assessed.   As a third party service provider, Paylease is not within our control nor can we count funds that are paid through this process as received until they are actually deposited to the association’s bank account.  In making payments through this process, making an allowance for the three day processing time, as indicated on the Paylease website, will ensure timely payments and avoid the necessity of future late fees being assessed.   The following month the amount of the monthly assessment for this association changed and, for nearly all of 2015, the monthly assessment payment that was made by the complainant was unchanged and, therefore, continuously underpaid. At the end of 2015 the accumulation of short payments raised the amount of unpaid assessments to the point that collection action was initiated.  Please note that an assessment account statement was mailed to the complainant each month on which was reflected the account status.   Complainant has entered into a payment plan with the association.

Our firm is the management company for the East Farmington Homeowners Association (Association).  As such, we are responsible for the collection of the association’s homeowner assessments which are levied annually at the beginning of each year.
Ms. [redacted] purchased her home and became a...

member of the Association in September 2009.  She successfully made payment on her first annual assessment in 2010.  No additional payments were received for the following six years.  In 2016 the Board of Directors of the Association resolved to commence lien foreclosure due to the owner’s failure to remit payment.  The lien foreclosure process was put on hold while a payment plan was discussed with Ms. [redacted].  On February 3, 2016 a payment plan was established beginning in February 2016.  The terms of the payment plan provided Ms. [redacted] complete flexibility with regards to how she remitted her payment(s) with the only stipulation being that her payments must post to her account in the month that they are due. 
Ms. [redacted] has several remittance options which include remitting payment online via eCheck or credit card, mailing a check, setting up the Association as a payee through her bank or hand-delivering a check directly to our Bloomington, MN office.  The mailing address in Los Angeles is directly to a lockbox within the US Bank payment processing facility.  The payments received through the lockbox are deposited to the Association bank account daily and posted to the homeowner’s account on the date received.
The Association Board of Directors has been reasonable in their approach to offer payment plans, but have been strict with deadlines given the six years of non-payment.  After it was determined the payment plan was defaulted, the action to pursue lien foreclosure recommenced.
As Ms. [redacted] has noted, the flat $50.00 late fee was not being charged in accordance with the Association’s Declaration.  The Declaration imposes an 8% interest charge on delinquent accounts.  This error was to the benefit of Ms. [redacted], as the 8% per anum this charge would result in substantially higher late fees versus the flat fee that was charged annually to her account.
Ms. [redacted] has asserted that FirstService Residential has violated various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCPA); however, a professional management company providing management services for a homeowners association is not considered a “debt collector” under the FDCPA.  The Association’s attorney was notified and has been handling the collection action requested by the Board of Directors of the Association.  FirstService Residential will continue to respond to owner inquiries and set up payment plans as outlined by the Association Board of Directors.  The costs due to the delinquency are charged to the Association pursuant to the governing documents and management agreement.  These fees, legal and management, are properly assessed to Ms. [redacted]’s account pursuant to the terms of the association’s Declaration. 
The Association will honor the flat $50 annual late fee and will not recalculate the 8% interest.  As a result of the payments made on the account in May the drafted lien was never recorded against Ms. [redacted]’s property.  There have been no reports made to any credit agencies.  We Ms. [redacted] is encouraged to reach out to FirstService Residential to arrange a payment plan or request a payoff for the remaining account balance.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/12/16) */
FirstService Residential is the management company for the homeowners association of which the complainant is a member. It is our responsibility to collect the monthly assessment payments for the association from each of the homeowners.
The...

complainant has contacted our office numerous times over the past several weeks calling into question the process by which payments that are made via third party service providers are handled. Timely responses have been made to all inquiries providing information regarding these processes.
Payments that are not made timely, i.e., received no later than the 15th day of each month, are, per the association's collection policy, to be charged a late fee. For the association assessment payment due in October 2015, the complainant's payment was initiated through Paylease on October 14th, her bank released the funds to Paylease on October 15th, Paylease transferred the funds to the association's bank on October 16th, the funds were deposited to the association's bank account and the payment posted to the complainant's association account on October 17th. As the payment was not received by the 15th, a late fee was added to the account. As a courtesy, the late fee was subsequently removed on November 17.
As a third party service provider, Paylease is not within our control nor can we count funds that are paid through this process as received until they are actually deposited to the association's bank account. In making payments through this process, making an allowance for the three day processing time, as indicated on the Paylease website, will ensure timely payments and avoid the necessity of future late fees being assessed.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/12/17) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The information provided on the Paylease website describes, a little, the process by which payments are accepted by the website and processed, but, in fact, does not contain information concerning how and/or when, exactly, payments have been noted are to be considered received by the HOA. As I chatted with my bank and also with Paylease, I discovered that my bank would process the transactions it receives from Paylease AS OF THE DATE INDICATED BY PAYLEASE ON THE ELECTRONICALLY-FILED NOTICE OF E-ECHECK TRANSACTION IT RECEIVES FROM PAYLEASE. If Paylease indicates, on this form, the date that member transacts the payment online (which Paylease receipts on that date), then that's the date that my bank would deduct the payment. If Paylease indicates a subsequent date on the transaction, then the subsequent date is the date that my bank would deduct the transaction from my account.
The Paylease website indicates, as well, under its description of "Processing Status Descriptions," that the status of a transaction as 'Paid Out' indicates that a payment has officially reached the HOA's account, which means that it is officially nonrefundable to the homeowner, as Paylease defines this status. If Paylease were to indicate, to banks, the date on which transactions were completed AND RECEIPTED by Paylease as the transaction dates to banks, then banks would deduct the amounts owed ON or AS OF THOSE DATES, which would mean that the receipt dates would, in fact, be the 'PAID OUT' dates. I see, from reading other complaints against FSR, that this is NOT an uncommon complaint against FSR, and that others have the same complaint. ALL of my transactions occurred and were deducted from my account ON OR BEFORE THE 15TH OF THE MONTH, and have been since I began using the Paylease system in June 2014. All my prior check payments to FSR have also been timely and I am current with my HOA dues. Neither Paylease nor FSR is willing to provide information defining EXACTLY when the 'Paid Out' date the website indicates actually is in the payment process timeline. I have asked and am asking both for an explanation of this and I feel that neither will respond because the response would indicate problems for FSR and Paylease, as I indicate, above.
In emails and letters from FSR's representative, who put me off bantering with me for at least 15 days when I asked for more information on this subject, FSR's representative failed to answer my questions directly, indicated that it had taken at least five days (instead of the widely published three-day-standard for the HOA/FSR) to recognize some of my payments in its accounting department and, in fact, in its paper statement to me for November or December, indicated that I was TWO MONTHS in arrears with my HOA dues. If the letter that this FSR account rep forwarded to me by email to "correct" my HOA dues payment history were to make it to my HOA Board of Directors, this BOD could conceivably take vitriolic action against me for PERCEIVED late payments which were timely. Such action could CONCEIVABLY include foreclosure action.
THIS IS WHY I AM ASKING FSR to correct my payment history in a formal letter to me and to undertake to correct Paylease process so that the receipted transaction dates are dates indicated on e-transaction notifications to financial institutions, so that there is correlation of 'paid out' status dates and transaction receipted dates.
As I indicated to FSR and Paylease, I would NOT be able to lay claim to my funds AFTER THEY LEAVE MY ACCOUNT, BECAUSE AFTER THEY LEAVE MY ACCOUNT, THEY ARE NO LONGER IN MY POSSESSION AND WOULD HAVE TO BE REFUNDED BY THE HOA / FSR.
I need the letter correcting my payment history. I and others appreciate the ability to use online transactions and, in general, all my conversations with Paylease have been cordial and Paylease has provided good information and customer service to me regarding its process. Paylease also keeps a payment history, which appears to be accurate. I highly value this information and the system, in general, is a good one, but for the apparent gratuitous nastiness of FSR's account representative, which I take to be a misguided attempt to cover up and "protect" FSR's interests in its relationship with its client HOA(s). If undertaking the view that "we're all on the same team," is too difficult in these matters, then, perhaps what we need is more regulation and accountability by FSR and its representatives.
That's it.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 17, 2016/01/05) */
Our records of the complainant's history of association assessment payments accurately reflects the timing of the receipt of the payments and has been provided to them. Though this may differ from the timing of when funds were taken from their checking account by Paylease, we will not be amending our records to close the time lag that occurs in the transfer of funds.
We consider this matter closed.

The tenant commented both to the onsite manager and the HVAC technician that he had ordered and attempted to install an electrical part – this is documented and there is no reason to believe these statements are false.   The tenant should have, and may have, reported the issue with the HVAC to the owner of the unit.   Management should have referred Mr. [redacted]’s tenant back to him to report the non-emergency maintenance issue.   Management’s comment regarding the repair being covered by insurance was premature and was based on the repair being submitted for review, not an actual approval of a claim amendment   The Association’s insurance carrier denied the claim that the HVAC unit was damaged by the water leak – this is a carrier issue not a management issue.   The repair can be submitted to the owner’s HO6 carrier if they feel it was damaged by the 04.11.17 water leak – we can assist with documentation to facilitate that process.   We acknowledge that the communication prior to the repair should have been exclusively with the owner, not with the tenant.  The office manager was new to her position and in her efforts to be helpful, worked with the tenant, not the owner, to get the HVAC unit repaired.  Mr. [redacted] made some assumptions that the association’s insurance would pay for repairs to the HVAC unit.  The carrier has denied this claim and the Association received no funds for the mechanical repairs.   We are open to a reasonable resolution in the interest of bringing the matter to closure for all parties.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/06/23) */
First, the complainant is a member of the [redacted] and complaints about service, or any other matter involving his association, should be directed to his elected Board of Directors. Second, we did in fact respond to the complainant and...

this light fixture has in fact been repaired. We inspected the building again today and all light fixtures are operational. The association will not be issuing a refund of the complainant's June association dues.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2015/07/01) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
They FINALLY did fix the issue but after a 2 week delay. The fact of the matter is for the amount of money that I pay, they are supposed to provide a service in a timely manner. Fixing a light bulb after 2 weeks is not in a timely manner. Their service is abysmal. I am a member of the association and I have brought my complaints to the board as well(hoping that we can find a new management company since First Service Residential) cant do complete the service part that is in their name. Unfortunately this has become a recurring issue with delayed maintenance items not being fixed timely. I just want the public to know that this company should not have a good Revdex.com rating and to not use them.

FirstService Residential is the management company for the condominium association of which the complainant is a member.  As the managing agent for the association, it is our duty to administer the association’s responsibilities, including the collection of the monthly assessment payments for...

the association from each of the homeowners.  We are, at all times, acting under the provisions of association’s Declaration and at the direction of the association’s Board of Directors. The complainant’s dwelling unit sustained damage from a water leak from the dwelling unit above. The Sexton Lofts Condominium Association filed a claim for damages under the association’s master insurance policy; however, the claim was denied. The complainant asserted that the HVAC unit within his unit was damaged by the water leak on 04.11.17 despite waiting nearly 90 days to report this matter to the management office. The complainant’s tenant requested service and provided access to the dwelling unit for the service provider.  The service provider completed the HVAC service and noted that the HVAC unit was found not to be operational, in part, due to someone “self-performing” electrical work. The HVAC unit is, per the Association’s Declaration, a Limited Common Element with the cost of this repair being exclusive to the unit.  The amount charged for this repair, $1,818.32, is a correct charge and is due and owing to the Association.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/12/22) */
FirstService Residential was the management company for the condominium association of which the complainant is a member of the Board of Directors. Our management relationship with them ended on October 31, 2015.
The complainant alleges...

improper management for ten months (Jan - Oct 2015) with minimal specifics to substantiate this claim. There was no indication from complainant regarding any dissatisfaction that may have existed until we provided a 60 day notification (August 20) to them that we were not renewing our management agreement with the association.
Shortly thereafter, we received a request for a free month of service; again with no substantive specifics. We immediately responded to the request with specifics regarding performance and denied the request to waive our fee for the final month of service.
In response to the content of this complaint:
- There was one month (August 2015) when the financial statement for the association was provided a few days late.
- Communication with the homeowners and Board members was timely.
- There was no emergency situation that was not promptly responded to.
- Routine property inspection visits were made to the site as well as scheduled appointments kept with service providers.
We do not feel that there is reason to provide the complainant with free service. We wish them well with their new management firm.
Complaint Response Date bumped because: Holiday
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/12/23) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The definition of timely is not 1-2 weeks. The manager would take 1-2 weeks to reply to board emails and owner emails. The emergency that took place was responded 3 business days after the incident occurred. There was no inspection reports provided nor did the property manager visit monthly as the contract stated. You took our monthly fee and did not provide what you said you did. I hope the customer service they provide improves. good luck in the future.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/01/05) */
There is no requirement in our contract for written property inspection reports nor were they ever requested by the association's Board of Directors. While the complainant may not have ever been at the property during our inspection visits (they work full time days and do not reside at the property), the inspections take place routinely and action is taken on any deficiencies noted in property condition at that time.
We consider this matter closed.