Little & Sons Property Management

Little & Sons Property Management l l Camino Del Rio South, Suite San Diego, CA 92108-3550Dçcember 1, 2015Revdex.com Attn: [redacted] Viewridge Ave #San Diego, CA 92123-1688RE: ID # [redacted] ***Dcar Ms [redacted] :Please sce thc below in response to [redacted] complaint,The deck landing leading to the front door of the complainant was reported to be in disrepair by a ncighboring residentThe deck landing was found to be a safety hazard after investigation by sour qualified partiesOn September 4th, our office, on behalf of the HOA, scheduled the repairs sor September 9th, the soonest available date provided by the contractor at a cost of $At that time, our officc found wc did not have contact information for the complainant other than a mailing addressContact insormation is the responsibility of a homeowner to provide to an HOAWe decided to proceed with the work on an emergency basis beginning September 9th duc to the safety hazard of the deck landing becausc rescheduling with the contractor would have postponed the job for an unknown amount of timeWe were advised that thc rcpairs would take daysWe acknowledge that this decision was not in accordance with the three-day noticc requirement; however, we made this judgment bascd on the opinions received by four scparate qualifica partics that the landing was a risk to the complainant's safetyWhen we did achieve communication with the complainant on September 9th, we continued to keep the complainant informed thereafterThe complainant at one point thankcd us for pursuing thc repairs on an cmergency basis because of the safety hazard, although he did continue to cxpress frustration with the lack of notice and inconvenience.During the demolition process on September 9th, significant amounts of wood rot to the complainant's balcony, joists, and other supporting structural components to the building were found that were unforeseen by all partics who inspected the deck landing priorThe contractor advised us much more extcnsive repairs were required at a total cost of $23,730, and that engineer plans would be necded first to proccedWe immediately contracted to have engincer plans done, as well as two opinions conducted by separate contractors to dclermine is the additional repairs to correct further sascoy hazards were validThe deck landing and balconies were temporarily stabilizcd in the interim, and in the opinion of the contractor, it was left in safe condition, albeit acsthetically unpleasingThe additional opinions confirmed repairs to the building's structure were requiredOn October 26th, the enginc.cr plans were finalized and scnt to the contractors for bidThe HOA awarded the job for additional repairs to the original contractorsOn November 10th, our office advised the complainant [hat the additional repairs would commence November 16thOur office exchanged approximately cmails and half a dozen phone calls with the complainant from September to presentWe belicve we handled the situation as quickly and efficiently as possible given the number of parties involved, their schedules, the maintenance obligations of the HOA, and obligations of the HOA to be fiducially responsible to its membersWe regret that thcre werc delays caused by the necd to obtain engineering plans, scCondary opinions, and authorization of the HOA board; however, these delays werc out of our control and unavoidableWe understand thc significant inconvenience causcd to the complainant and regret it, yet we worked as diligently as possible to resolve the situation given the complexities involved.The bottom line is we are agents of thc HOA and the complainant has not availed himself to resolvc his gricvances via other proper avenues, which include attending board mcctings, meet and conser sessions, and mediationWe understand the complainant's frustrations; however, we arc not going to compensatc the complaintint for work our clients havc donc io protect safcty.If you wish to further discuss this matter with us, please contact our officc at (619).298- [redacted] ext, ***,Sinccrcly,Mgm?’Assistant

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
The business claims that we have not made ourselves available to resolve this issue through other means, such as attending HOA board meetingsWe have not attended the board meeting because the HOA board does not post the date or time of the meetings, which is against HOA policySecondly, our issue is not with the HOA board, but with the management company that is acting as the HOA representative in this matter and their lack of sufficient communication during the repairThe management company claims they have had numerous communications with us; however the only communications we received prior to this complaint were for matters that are of little import, such as the fact that the architects submitted their plans or when bids were receivedWe should have been notified of matters that would directly impact our access to our home, which we were notWe were expected to grant access to our property with less than the legally required days noticeThe management company claims that was superceeded by the "emergency" clauseHowever, if the repair was indeed considered an emergency, it should not have taken months to resume the work once they realized the scope of the work was larger than originally quotedOur issue is not with the HOA board, but with the complete lack of concern for following legal policies regarding this repair from the management companyWe would like to be financially compensated for the loss of access to our property, as well as the time we have had to take off of work because we could not get out of our house or to clear out our garage to grant access without sufficient notice.
Regards,
*** ***

Little & Sons Property Management 4 l l Camino Del Rio South, Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92108-3550Dçcember 1, 2015Revdex.com Attn: [redacted] 4747 Viewridge Ave #220 San Diego, CA 92123-1688RE: ID #[redacted]Dcar Ms....

[redacted]:Please sce thc below in response to [redacted] complaint,The deck landing leading to the front door of the complainant was reported to be in disrepair by a ncighboring resident. The deck landing was found to be a safety hazard after investigation by sour qualified parties. On September 4th, our office, on behalf of the HOA, scheduled the repairs sor September 9th, the soonest available date provided by the contractor at a cost of $5850. At that time, our officc found wc did not have contact information for the complainant other than a mailing address. Contact insormation is the responsibility of a homeowner to provide to an HOA. We decided to proceed with the work on an emergency basis beginning September 9th duc to the safety hazard of the deck landing becausc rescheduling with the contractor would have postponed the job for an unknown amount of time. We were advised that thc rcpairs would take 2 days. We acknowledge that this decision was not in accordance with the three-day noticc requirement; however, we made this judgment bascd on the opinions received by four scparate qualifica partics that the landing was a risk to the complainant's safety. When we did achieve communication with the complainant on September 9th, we continued to keep the complainant informed thereafter. The complainant at one point thankcd us for pursuing thc repairs on an cmergency basis because of the safety hazard, although he did continue to cxpress frustration with the lack of notice and inconvenience.During the demolition process on September 9th, significant amounts of wood rot to the complainant's balcony, joists, and other supporting structural components to the building were found that were unforeseen by all partics who inspected the deck landing prior. The contractor advised us much more extcnsive repairs were required at a total cost of $23,730, and that engineer plans would be necded first to procced. We immediately contracted to have engincer plans done, as well as two opinions conducted by separate contractors to dclermine is the additional repairs to correct further sascoy hazards were valid. The deck landing and balconies were temporarily stabilizcd in the interim, and in the opinion of the contractor, it was left in safe condition, albeit acsthetically unpleasing. The additional opinions confirmed repairs to the building's structure were required. On October 26th, the enginc.cr plans were finalized and scnt to the contractors for bid. The HOA awarded the job for additional repairs to the original contractors. On November 10th, our office advised the complainant [hat the additional repairs would commence November 16th. Our office exchanged approximately 33 cmails and half a dozen phone calls with the complainant from September to present. We belicve we handled the situation as quickly and efficiently as possible given the number of parties involved, their schedules, the maintenance obligations of the HOA, and obligations of the HOA to be fiducially responsible to its members. We regret that thcre werc delays caused by the necd to obtain engineering plans, scCondary opinions, and authorization of the HOA board; however, these delays werc out of our control and unavoidable. We understand thc significant inconvenience causcd to the complainant and regret it, yet we worked as diligently as possible to resolve the situation given the complexities involved.The bottom line is we are agents of thc HOA and the complainant has not availed himself to resolvc his gricvances via other proper avenues, which include attending board mcctings, meet and conser sessions, and mediation. We understand the complainant's frustrations; however, we arc not going to compensatc the complaintint for work our clients havc donc io protect safcty.If you wish to further discuss this matter with us, please contact our officc at (619).298-[redacted] ext, [redacted],Sinccrcly,Mgm?’Assistant