Revdex.com Response: In response to the complaint filed with the Revdex.com the following information is being provided to a complaint filed by *** ***A meet and greet meeting was called with the Board of Directors and Gassen Management on September 21,
at 6:pmAt this meeting were the three board members for *** *** *** and Steven *** & Terry *** representing Gassen CompanyThis meeting was to introduce Gassen Company to the Board of Directors for the Association*** *** *** had just engaged Gassen Company on September 1, At this meeting Gassen Company was there to hear the concerns of the Board of Directors based on their past experience with *** Property ServicesGassen was there to let the Board of Directors know what we were going to do for the association*** Properties did not provide Gassen Company with much of any kind of transitional paperwork upon the termination of *** PropertiesSteven & Terry explained what we would attempt to do to recover any of that paperwork as well as any legal action that may need to take placeItems discussed: Board concerns, attempting to locate Phillip ***, attempting to locate past association documents, any legal actions needed, whether or not the association had insurance, monthly property visits, violations and violation letters, monthly board packets (Manager Reports), the proposed budget and the approval of the budgetAssociation By-Law # States that The meeting to be public unlessMeetings may be closed to discuss the following: A. Personnel Matters B. Pending or potential litigation, arbitration or other potentially adversarial proceedings, between owners, between the Board or Association and Owners, or other matters in which any Owner may have adverse interest, if the Board determines that closing the meeting is necessary to discuss strategy or to otherwise protect the position of the Board or Association or the privacy of all Owner or Occupant of a Unit; C. Criminal Activity arising within the Common Interest Community, if the Board determines that closing the meeting is necessary to protect the privacy of the victim or that opening the meeting would jeopardize investigation of the activityAt the public board meeting on November 22, there were a number of homeowners present and they had many valid concerns for the Board of DirectorsThe home owners were told at the beginning of this meeting that there would be a homeowner open forum at the end of the meeting for them to voice their concerns*** interrupted the meeting within the first minutes of the meeting and was asked to wait until the end of the meetingHe stated that the Wright County Sheriff would be showing upWhen asked why he declined a responseAt this point the meeting was being interrupted by many homeownersI (Steven) asked people to understand that the homeowner’s concerns involved *** Properties and the past Board of DirectorsI then explained what the current board and Gassen Company had done to correct the concerns*** attempted many times to point fingers and to incite homeowners to speak up against the current boardI again attempted to explain to the owners what was being done to correct the past issuesI asked in public forum if a reserve study had been completed to anyone’s knowledge*** stated “Yes” by a private person or companyI asked many times as to whom that wasI was told by *** that he would let me know in privateI have requested in two separate emails from *** the name of the person or company that provided the reserve study and have not received any response to dateAs far as financial documents that are available to homeowners those documents are available to ALL homeowners on the Gassen WebsiteThat was also stated at the public meeting SincerelySteven *** Association Manager
I am rejecting this response because:Steve is providing information, I still do not have access to the documentsYou think they would actually try to work with you
I am rejecting this response because:
The answer is not satisfactory and full of inaccuracies because
Nancy just took over the account from someone that I corresponded with on this
issueFirst there was only one dog in the rental house that’s subject to this
complaintThe dogs were in another unit and were satisfactorily removed from
the premises by the deadline that was givenOne of the tenants was unable to
get one dog out by the deadline and I agreed to pay the $fine for one dog as
in the Association RulesThe Board President knows that and that’s why they
billed me $for June of and I paid itGassen applied the dog payment
to another house even when there were sufficient instructions to apply the
funds to pay the dog fineIf there were dogs they would have billed for $
but they billed me $
I have provided evidence to Gassen showing that there was
never a meeting that approved the change from $per dog per month to $
and $which was billed to my accountIf the reason Gassen charged two and
three hundred fine was based number of dogs we can verify that there was one
tiny dog and come to the same conclusion that Gassen is responsible for legal
fees
My account would not have been past due if Gassen had used
my dog fines and applied it to the rightful account and if Gassen had not
continuous continued to put late fees on my account before the payment due date
of the 15thThe late fees were reversed because they were wrongly
charged; the misallocated payments for fines need to be applied to the right
accountFor June and July I paid $per month with instruction to pay the
$fine for the dog and $for dues per unitThe dog was removed at the
end of August and I authorized the Board to verify and they didMy total fines
are $for June, July and August
Please provide a copy of the rules that were used to charge
me more than $per monthI don’t want to repeat myself, but without the
negligence of Gassen for billing me late fees at the wrong time and the
misallocation of the dog fine payment to a wrong account which made the subject
property appear to have a $balance instead of the correct $there would
never have been a need to take my account to collection
I also requested a detailed invoice from your attorney showing
the work they performed for $1,in their collection effortsAs you know
these are Gassen affiliates
I am available to discuss this matter with Gassen and I
think a conference call would serve better to try and come to a resolution
Nancy is new to this whole thing and I sympathize with her
I will accept a response when the meeting has taken place
and when a resolution has been achieved
Dear Mr***,I am responding on behalf of Mr*** Gassen. We have reached out to the Homeowner, requesting a face to face meeting with myself and MrTim *** our Director of Operations. It is tentatively scheduled for Friday, June 3rd at 1:pm. The Homeowner wants to conduct this via conference call and we have asked the Homeowner to come to our office to meet with us to review his complaint. Management is waiting for a response from the Homeowner. You can contact me directly in the future if you prefer, n***@gassen.com or ###-###-####. Thank you.Nancy ***, CMCA, AMSGassen Company
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/05/28) */
Please note that the glass for the fire extinguisher has been replaced. The carpet on the stairs was repaired before the date of this complaint. Please see attached photos.
Hello,My name is Nancy [redacted] and I am the Association's Manager since April 1, 2016. Prior to this date, the Association contracted with Gassen Company for monthly financial statements only. Mr. Gassen requested I respond to the complaint. I have attached recent correspondence...
to Mr. [redacted]. It is the responsibility of the Board of Directors and the Management Agent (Gassen Company) to follow the Association's governing documents (Articles of Incorporation, Declaration and Bylaws). Mr. [redacted], being a former President of the Board of Directors is aware of the legal responsibility, obligation and due diligence that the Association must follow.Mr. [redacted] apparently had two dogs and dogs are not allowed at the Association, this is a violation of the Association Rules. Mr. [redacted] was fined for non-compliance of the Association Rules.It is my understanding that his account was past due and because of the dog issue, legal counsel was necessary to try and resolve this matter. That apparently did not work. Per the governing documents, legal fees can be charged back to the owner's account.It is the intention of myself and of Mr. Tim [redacted] our Director of Operations, to contact Mr. [redacted] and request he meet with us face to face to attempt to resolve his disputes. This will require cooperation from Mr. [redacted].Please contact me with any additional questions regarding this claim. We hope this response is satisfactory and that you will close the complaint. Thank you.Nancy [redacted], CMCA, AMSGassen Company###-###-####n[redacted]@gassen.com As
I am rejecting this response because: it was not even written by Gassen, it was written by the collection company (lawyer Matthew [redacted]. This complaint is not against him and it does not address the calculations of the debt with adequate proof of what they are for nor does it...
acknowledge or propose a solution or outcome. The response does defame us with accusations of harassment for using freedom of speech against bullies like his firm and for having the audacity to contact you and other consumer protection agencies. As Gassen didn't bother to respond to you themselves, you can clearly see that they do not even respect the Revdex.com and what they do for consumers (referring to it as harassment). I am in contact with the MN Lawyers Board of Professional Responsibility and they seem to be interested in how this is taking place. Matthew [redacted] retaliated against us for sharing what had happened with you by having us served AGAIN with an amended lawsuit showing A higher amount. So much for Revdex.com protection. Also Revdex.com why don't you have the legal action against Gassen companies on their page on your site? The United States Justice Department charged them with discrimination and Gassen entered into a consent order LESS THAN A YEAR AGO! Google it. How can they have the Revdex.com rating that you gave them with THAT horrible history?All Gassen has to do is respond to my complaint and not have someone else write up drivel. Also I would appreciate a solution possibly being presented instead of again more drivel.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/08/28) */
I have attached a copy of the homeowner ledger which identifies was charge against the account and each payment that has been applied. The charges are reflected as Monthly fee ort Special assessment and the payments are reflected as Lockbox...
Payment received and appear as credits ($). I have also attached copies of the payments as provided by the homeowner. You will note that both payments in question are applied against the account. Money order #[redacted] in the amount of $240.00 was applied on February 10, 2015. Cashiers Check # [redacted] in the amount of $240.00 was applied on the account on March 10, 2015.
I believe the problem exists because the homeowner often times sent in payments that resulted in credit balances, in effect paying ahead. You will note on the homeowner ledger no payments were received during the months of April or May 2015. Effectively those months were paid by the credit balances until the next payment was received on June 25, 2015.
Although I do not know the intent of the homeowner when making payments I suspect at some point in time they felt they had paid ahead for the months of May and June when in fact they had not. When asked to provide documentation of the payments they sent in the two (2) payments which are in fact applied to their account.
We will gladly waive any late fees incurred, which to date amount to a total of $45.00. However thisa does still leave a balance due on the account. If there are other payments the homeowner feels were not applied to the account yet cashed all I need is a copy of the front and back of the check and we will reserach further.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2015/08/31) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This association has not told me how much I owe them specifically. Only generic information has been relayed, and no further contact has been made by the association. I would also like to inquire about the $500.00 credit that was discussed verbally roughly 30 days ago.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 11, 2015/09/08) */
The consumer has stated that a Mr. [redacted] made reference that the account had over a $500.00 credit. There is no Mr. [redacted] that works in our office so I do not know who would have made this statement. However if you view the attached homeowner ledger, which I have again attached, there were various times when the consumer did in fact have a credit balance. The credit balances are noted by numbers in parenthesis. The credit balances were caused by the consumer making additional payments against the account. There was in fact a credit balance as of March 10, 2015 in the amount of $588.61 which appears on page 3 of the homeowner ledger. The credit balance was then used up during the months of April and May. Contrary to what the consumer is stating there was no $500.00 credit as of 30 days ago. Again this is evidenced by the attached homeowner ledger.
By removing the $45.00 in accumulated late fees the balance due as of this date $239.39. I am uncertain if this is what the consumer is asking for with the statement "this association has not told me how much I owe them specifically". The recurring monthly association fees are $246.00 per month which the consumer must be aware of since they have sent in $246.00 for the past few months.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/06/23) */
I am writing in response to the complaint you have received from [redacted] regarding this matter.
The Board of Directors of the Devonwood Association has approved the roof and skylights to be replaced on Mr. [redacted] building as well as...
another building at Devonwood; this is starting on June 29th. The Board has worked very diligently to obtain bids and approve one in a timely manner to move forward with this roof replacement project.
Per the documents of the Association, interior damages not covered by the Association insurance policy do fall back onto the owner through their individual HO6 policy. Additionally skylights are an owner matter to be responsible for as well, and this expense will be billed back to Mr. [redacted] after the roof replacement project is completed.
We have been in constant contact with Mr. [redacted] by giving him correspondence backup for the past 3 years and answering numerous emails from him and his real estate agent.
Please contact me should you have any additional questions or need any additional backup regarding this information.
see attachedThe complaint notice regarding Mr. [redacted] has been received by Gassen Company. Please consider this letter a response to the complaint. In 2015, Huntington Cove HOA hired a paint contractor to paint all exterior wood trim on the 24 association units. Homeowners were notified of...
the project through mailings and via the annual meeting minutes. Each homeowner was assessed $135.00 for the painting of their unit's exterior trim.In March 2016, the Huntington Cove Board of Directors requested that [redacted], Association Manager, place the delinquent homeowner unit accounts with the office of Roeder Smith Jaden. Because the delinquent account was placed with the attorney, all communication regarding the account is directed to the attorney's office. Mr. [redacted] was directed to contract the attorney with any questions regarding his account. Mr. [redacted]'s account was charged $65 for the attorney demand letter and $88.50 for attorney communications. Per the Board's decision, the legal fees will not be waived. Per the Declarations of Huntington Cove, Section 6.1 d, all legal fees incurred by the association in connection with the collection of assessments and the enforcement of the Governing Documents, MCOIA, or the Rules and Regulations may be assessed against the owners unit.
see attached The letter dated April 21, 2016 from the Revdex.com regarding ID [redacted], has been received in the Gassen office. As stated in the previously provided response, the Board of Directors of Huntington Cove HOA will not remove the $65.00 in legal fees from the account of [redacted]. This is a decision by the Board of Directors of Huntington Cove HOA to Gassen Company.
I am rejecting this response because:Steve presented documented false statement as true. He never asked why the deputy was coming and even made it a point to say that when he comes he could knock on the window! Never asked why he'd be there which was to file a report against a prior official as the people he'd need information from would be there, for efficiency. They had filed one with another organization but I was told I could submit that.I did ask a question during the beginning of the meeting while they were looking for the treasurer report, and that was if there would be an OPEN FORUM! To say I was interrupting is odd. I then asked if they could add someone to the agenda which was the deputy.This wasn't about what he responded with, I was asking him to correct some issues. Instead he launches into an Ad hominem attack against me.He didn't address what was brought up here. They passed a sheet asking who wanted physical copies of the financials, not to be told to look on the website which didn't have it until this complaint.Steve didn't seem to change his tone. I also haven't received an apology.No public board meeting since annual meeting in April is unusual and they've met at least a couple of times since then, seems questionable. They could have private sections of the meeting like they did in November, seems very unusual that the whole meeting would be secret. They even discussed things such as putting items on the website and communication, doesn't seem like closed meeting discussion!As for wanting action by owners I was presenting facts. The board didn't want people contacting them.They also were Not putting funds into reserves, how come they didn't appear to be actioning on that?They also weren't getting monthly reports consistently, how come they didn't appear to be actioning on that?Majority of board on there for majority of last 4 years. When I tried to talk to one of them about the issues they didn't even seem interested in replacing the prior property manager and look at all these issues!A board member was also Presenting something documented false as being true at this November board meeting.
I am rejecting this response because:
Dear Mr. [redacted],Thank you for taking the time to look over this case. I'm definitely not satisfied with their response. I understand their justifications for their behavior, and the excessive attorney fees that come along with that. The issue I have is that on their original letter informing me about the painting project, there wasn't a date of when the payment was due. It seems unethical to hire a third party to collect the debt (which correspondence from the attorney ended up costing more than the actual painting bill) when there wasn't an official invoice with a due date to begin with. I've lived in this townhouse for six years under Gassen, and I've never missed a monthly association fee; considering that I pay them $2,500/year, you'd think the least they could do is call or email me reminding me of the painting bill, instead of hiring a debt collector. From the time they sent the original letter up until they hired the debt collector, only about four months had passed (since I've consistently paid my association dues, that should indicate to them that I'm not trying to evade the painting bill). If there had been a due date, I would have paid it by then; if I had known they were going to hire a debt collector and incur unnecessary attorney fees, I would have paid it to prevent that. I have paid the painting bill in its entirety along with legal fees, and now all I am asking for is to get my $65 back.Thanks again for your time. I hope that Gassen can see my perspective on this.Sincerely,[redacted]
I am writing in response to the response from Revdex.com that Gassen received on April 15, 2016. The unit owner of this unit [redacted] believes she does not have to pay for monies owed to the Ridgeview due to filing bankruptcy; she still owes post bankruptcy’s monies that are currently due to Ridgeview. This account has been turned over the Association collection attorney that is hired by the Board of Directors. [redacted] is still the owner and responsible for the outstanding monies she owes Ridgeview HOA. Per the documents of the Association, the Board can legally authorize having the dues accelerated through the end of this fiscal year 2016. The current balance on this account is $7,635.00 as of today. It is clear this owner does not understand the laws however both Gassen and the collection attorney have attempted to do what we can to inform her of this. The outcome would be for this owner to pay in full or present a payment plan to Gassen that I will then present to the Board for consideration. The Board of Directors give Gassen Company direction on all these matters. Gassen does not act on behalf of the Association without Board approval.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/04) */
[redacted]response has been scanned in and converted to text below (original document is available using the online complaint system).
This letter, and all attached documentation, is being sent to you in response to a consumer complaint (Case...
#[redacted]: [redacted]) that was received by me at my office on November 2", 2015. The complaint was made by a previous tenant for a property managed by our office on behalf of our client who is the owner and landlord of the property. I have included documentation and email correspondence with this letter to support the response below to [redacted]'s complaint.
Gassen Company takes professionalism and great service to our clients very seriously. The emails included with this letter will show that the client was treated with professionalism and always responded to within a reasonable timeline so as to try and resolve any and all issues as quickly as possible. The complaint states that "our requests for repairs, due under Minnesota Renter's Rights, went unremedied for months at a time. It took 4 months to replace a broken dishwasher, and it only happened after we spoke to the owner himself." This claim is not accurate. As with all of the properties that Gassen Company manages, permission is required, directly from the property owner/landlord that we represent, in order to approve repairs that will incur a cost above a certain amount. The dishwasher, as is evidenced by the attached emails, was repaired twice in that timeframe by AHS (American Home Shield) at the property owner's request due to the property owner using AHS' appliance home warranty program. The tenant's requested that the dishwasher be replaced and the property owner decided to have it repaired both times that AHS visited the property. After the dishwasher needed to be repaired a 3" time the property owner agreed to replace the dishwasher. All of these repairs and replacement of the dishwasher were conducted as quickly as was possible. Unfortunately, due to the way the AHS is set up, payment of a trip charge is due to the vendor that performs the repair upon completion and the tenants were notified of this ahead of time and were offered immediate reimbursement of any and all charges and/or to deduct the vendor's cost from the rent. Gassen Company was notified by the tenants, including Mr. [redacted], until weeks after scheduled repair dates of any issues with any of the vendors that performed the work at the property and would have taken immediate action to correct any issues once informed.
The previous tenant, [redacted], goes to claim that "The smoke and carbon monoxide detectors were old and some did not even have batteries. We had to request many things in writing countless times. Our home was dirty on the outside and we were promised a powerwash in writing, which never happened" which is also not accurate. Regarding the request and promise for a power
wash by the tenants; a power washing was not promised to the tenants. Prior to the tenant's moving into the property the smoke and carbon monoxide detectors were all in working condition, and the interior of the home was professionally painted and cleaned. As a part of the lease the tenants are given a move-in condition report and asked to return this in order to document the condition of the property in order to compare against their move-out as well as to determine any items needing immediate repair. The move-in condition report was never submitted back to Gassen Company by the tenants, however, any and all emailed items requesting repair were responded to and resolved if and when the property gave consent,
Regarding the tenant's ([redacted]), request for early termination, on September 15", 2015 an email conversation between the tenants and the property owner was forwarded by one of the other tenants to Gassen Company about their request to move out early. This email was dated August 24, 2015 and stated that the tenants could vacate "now" without any early termination fee (after having only lived in the property for 4 months). The tenants did not agree to accept the property owner's offer until September 15" (23 days later). The property owner made the decision that the offer was no longer valid at that point due to nearly a month having passed by and then stated that the tenants would be allowed to be released from their lease early (7 months early) with a one month's rent termination fee of $1750 to be deducted from the security deposit. The tenants contested this and refused the offer and sent threatening emails for 6 days until the property owner agreed to release the tenants from their lease and agreed to return their full deposit, pending an inspection of the unit after the tenants had vacated the property, barring there were no repairs to be made and that the tenants vacated the property by September 30, 2015. The tenants decided to agree to the property owner's terms and move-out date in order to avoid any early lease termination fees. The complaint states that "the management company wanted to keep an entire month's rent as a termination fee if we stayed one day longer", but none of any potential termination fees would have been kept by Gassen Company. Any and all money paid by tenants including rent fees, deposits, late fees, early lease termination fees, etc. are transferred directly to the property owner. Included with this response letter are emails to support the information above.
In regards to Mr. [redacted]'s issue with the security deposit refund and the money withheld for the repairs and cleaning, attached are pictures to show the damage done to the interior walls of the home (all within 5 months and after the entire interior of the home was professionally painted prior to the tenants move-in) as well as some specific areas that warranted the home be cleaned after the tenants had vacated the property. As evidenced by the pictures showing the damage to the walls, there was extensive work that needed to be done in the home in order to repair the walls that had been in perfect condition not more than 5 month's prior to the tenants vacating the property. There is no doubt that these repairs are above normal wear and tear and as a results, and per the lease, the financial responsibility of the tenant. The information and pictures regarding the condition of the property after the tenant's vacated the property was presented to the property owner, The property owner, not Gassen Company, makes all decisions regarding the security deposit refunds and whether or not to withhold any funds for repairs, damages, and/or cleaning. The lease that the tenants signed has a Security Deposit Agreement Addendum which states:
"4. Any determination to withhold all or part of the security deposit is made in the sole discretion of the Owner at the time the move-out inspection is completed by Owner or upon review of the move-out inspection form by Owner. Therefore, Management hereby makes no representations and warranties to Tenant as to owner's decision to withhold all or part of the Security Deposit.
5. Any Claims or challenges made by Tenant to Management related to Owner's disposition of the security deposit shall be directed to Owner, as Owner is required to determine the disposition of the Security Deposit."
The property owner instructed Gassen Company to have the repairs of the walls (patching and painting) and the cleaning be completed and the costs withheld from the tenant's security deposit. As a result of the property owner's decision, the wall/painting repairs and cleaning was scheduled and performed immediately so as to be able to return the tenant's security deposit refund to them within the state required 21 days. Furthermore, the company that cleaned the property was selected specifically because of the cost that was quoted (a 2300 square foot 3 Bedroom 4 Bathroom home) at the total cost of $120 (well below industry standard cost). The painter that painted the home in May agreed to come back and make the repairs (which even involved sanding, priming, and painting a whole wall that the tenants damaged and tried to patch themselves which caused further damage) at a minimal cost of $400 so as to avoid charging the tenants with a higher priced painting vendor. None of the charges for the cost of painting or cleaning were marked up by Gassen Company and the companies used to perform the work have no affiliation to Gassen Company. The cost of the painting/wall repairs and cleaning, if performed by most other contractors, would have likely cost significantly more,
Gassen Company understands that the tenants do not agree with the property owner's decision to withhold the $520 (cost of repairs and cleaning) from their security deposit refund. It is our hope that the tenants understand that it is not Gassen Companies' ability to make any decisions regarding security deposit refunds and that it is the property owner's decision alone as it states in the lease. If there is any additional documentation, statements, or other materials needed for resolution please let me know.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/11/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Thanks for avoiding my question. Again, we want an exact dollar for dollar breakdown of what our money is being spent on. Supplies, paint, repair materials, etc.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/11/12) */
This letter, and all attached documentation, is being sent to you in response to the letter I received from you, dated November 5", stating that the consumer did not accept our previous written response to their complaint. I have included/attached the invoices from the companies that performed the painting and the cleaning at the property so that the consumer, [redacted], can see the exact dollar for dollar breakdown. I have also included a copy of the Security Deposit Refund Letter
Invoice that was provided to the tenants (including [redacted]) that shows the breakdown of the deductions from the security deposit refund.
If there is any additional documentation, statements, or other materials needed for resolution
please let me know.
Final Consumer Response /* (3000, 14, 2015/11/17) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I am completely unsatisfied. Why are you dancing around my request? Again, we were already mailed the generic documents you've provided. I am familiar with how much paint costs per gallon. On what planet does patchwork painting and labor cost $400? How many cans of paint are being used? How many brushes? How much is labor per hour? We could have done it ourselves for less than $25. Ridiculously inflated dollar amount. We don't want your generic responses. The owner made us a promise in writing. We were muscled out of the property by your horrible company and your hostile property manager. Legally, you didn't give us ample time to make a decision and move out. You do you expect people to move out "now". We have all email correspondences if you'd like quotes and examples.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Dear Revdex.com, The complaint submitted by [redacted] St. [redacted] has been resolved with Ms. [redacted]. The $75 in late fees on her account have been removed. Because she is not showing in the Summit at Buck Hill records as an owner she was not receiving association mail or...
notices. She has provided Gassen with documentation showing ownership in the home and Gassen has recommended she contact her county offices to verify she is on the homes warranty deed.The Board of Directors changed the late fee policy and late fee date in early 2016 and Ms. [redacted] did not receive the notice because she was not recognized as an owner but her roommate is listed as the owner. In the future she will receive association information as an owner.Thank you for your time, Kristi [redacted], CMCA, AMSVice President, Association ManagementGassen Company
Revdex.com Response: In response to the complaint filed with the Revdex.com the following information is being provided to a complaint filed by *** ***A meet and greet meeting was called with the Board of Directors and Gassen Management on September 21,
at 6:pmAt this meeting were the three board members for *** *** *** and Steven *** & Terry *** representing Gassen CompanyThis meeting was to introduce Gassen Company to the Board of Directors for the Association*** *** *** had just engaged Gassen Company on September 1, At this meeting Gassen Company was there to hear the concerns of the Board of Directors based on their past experience with *** Property ServicesGassen was there to let the Board of Directors know what we were going to do for the association*** Properties did not provide Gassen Company with much of any kind of transitional paperwork upon the termination of *** PropertiesSteven & Terry explained what we would attempt to do to recover any of that paperwork as well as any legal action that may need to take placeItems discussed: Board concerns, attempting to locate Phillip ***, attempting to locate past association documents, any legal actions needed, whether or not the association had insurance, monthly property visits, violations and violation letters, monthly board packets (Manager Reports), the proposed budget and the approval of the budgetAssociation By-Law # States that The meeting to be public unlessMeetings may be closed to discuss the following: A. Personnel Matters B. Pending or potential litigation, arbitration or other potentially adversarial proceedings, between owners, between the Board or Association and Owners, or other matters in which any Owner may have adverse interest, if the Board determines that closing the meeting is necessary to discuss strategy or to otherwise protect the position of the Board or Association or the privacy of all Owner or Occupant of a Unit; C. Criminal Activity arising within the Common Interest Community, if the Board determines that closing the meeting is necessary to protect the privacy of the victim or that opening the meeting would jeopardize investigation of the activityAt the public board meeting on November 22, there were a number of homeowners present and they had many valid concerns for the Board of DirectorsThe home owners were told at the beginning of this meeting that there would be a homeowner open forum at the end of the meeting for them to voice their concerns*** interrupted the meeting within the first minutes of the meeting and was asked to wait until the end of the meetingHe stated that the Wright County Sheriff would be showing upWhen asked why he declined a responseAt this point the meeting was being interrupted by many homeownersI (Steven) asked people to understand that the homeowner’s concerns involved *** Properties and the past Board of DirectorsI then explained what the current board and Gassen Company had done to correct the concerns*** attempted many times to point fingers and to incite homeowners to speak up against the current boardI again attempted to explain to the owners what was being done to correct the past issuesI asked in public forum if a reserve study had been completed to anyone’s knowledge*** stated “Yes” by a private person or companyI asked many times as to whom that wasI was told by *** that he would let me know in privateI have requested in two separate emails from *** the name of the person or company that provided the reserve study and have not received any response to dateAs far as financial documents that are available to homeowners those documents are available to ALL homeowners on the Gassen WebsiteThat was also stated at the public meeting SincerelySteven *** Association Manager
I am rejecting this response because:Steve is providing information, I still do not have access to the documentsYou think they would actually try to work with you
I am rejecting this response because:
The answer is not satisfactory and full of inaccuracies because
Nancy just took over the account from someone that I corresponded with on this
issueFirst there was only one dog in the rental house that’s subject to this
complaintThe dogs were in another unit and were satisfactorily removed from
the premises by the deadline that was givenOne of the tenants was unable to
get one dog out by the deadline and I agreed to pay the $fine for one dog as
in the Association RulesThe Board President knows that and that’s why they
billed me $for June of and I paid itGassen applied the dog payment
to another house even when there were sufficient instructions to apply the
funds to pay the dog fineIf there were dogs they would have billed for $
but they billed me $
I have provided evidence to Gassen showing that there was
never a meeting that approved the change from $per dog per month to $
and $which was billed to my accountIf the reason Gassen charged two and
three hundred fine was based number of dogs we can verify that there was one
tiny dog and come to the same conclusion that Gassen is responsible for legal
fees
My account would not have been past due if Gassen had used
my dog fines and applied it to the rightful account and if Gassen had not
continuous continued to put late fees on my account before the payment due date
of the 15thThe late fees were reversed because they were wrongly
charged; the misallocated payments for fines need to be applied to the right
accountFor June and July I paid $per month with instruction to pay the
$fine for the dog and $for dues per unitThe dog was removed at the
end of August and I authorized the Board to verify and they didMy total fines
are $for June, July and August
Please provide a copy of the rules that were used to charge
me more than $per monthI don’t want to repeat myself, but without the
negligence of Gassen for billing me late fees at the wrong time and the
misallocation of the dog fine payment to a wrong account which made the subject
property appear to have a $balance instead of the correct $there would
never have been a need to take my account to collection
I also requested a detailed invoice from your attorney showing
the work they performed for $1,in their collection effortsAs you know
these are Gassen affiliates
I am available to discuss this matter with Gassen and I
think a conference call would serve better to try and come to a resolution
Nancy is new to this whole thing and I sympathize with her
I will accept a response when the meeting has taken place
and when a resolution has been achieved
Dear Mr***,I am responding on behalf of Mr*** Gassen. We have reached out to the Homeowner, requesting a face to face meeting with myself and MrTim *** our Director of Operations. It is tentatively scheduled for Friday, June 3rd at 1:pm. The Homeowner wants to conduct this via conference call and we have asked the Homeowner to come to our office to meet with us to review his complaint. Management is waiting for a response from the Homeowner. You can contact me directly in the future if you prefer, n***@gassen.com or ###-###-####. Thank you.Nancy ***, CMCA, AMSGassen Company
We did receive the request to repair the door. The vendor was contacted the same day, the door has been repaired.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/05/28) */
Please note that the glass for the fire extinguisher has been replaced. The carpet on the stairs was repaired before the date of this complaint. Please see attached photos.
Hello,My name is Nancy [redacted] and I am the Association's Manager since April 1, 2016. Prior to this date, the Association contracted with Gassen Company for monthly financial statements only. Mr. Gassen requested I respond to the complaint. I have attached recent correspondence...
to Mr. [redacted]. It is the responsibility of the Board of Directors and the Management Agent (Gassen Company) to follow the Association's governing documents (Articles of Incorporation, Declaration and Bylaws). Mr. [redacted], being a former President of the Board of Directors is aware of the legal responsibility, obligation and due diligence that the Association must follow.Mr. [redacted] apparently had two dogs and dogs are not allowed at the Association, this is a violation of the Association Rules. Mr. [redacted] was fined for non-compliance of the Association Rules.It is my understanding that his account was past due and because of the dog issue, legal counsel was necessary to try and resolve this matter. That apparently did not work. Per the governing documents, legal fees can be charged back to the owner's account.It is the intention of myself and of Mr. Tim [redacted] our Director of Operations, to contact Mr. [redacted] and request he meet with us face to face to attempt to resolve his disputes. This will require cooperation from Mr. [redacted].Please contact me with any additional questions regarding this claim. We hope this response is satisfactory and that you will close the complaint. Thank you.Nancy [redacted], CMCA, AMSGassen Company###-###-####n[redacted]@gassen.com As
Good Morning, Please see the attached Three (3) documents in response to this claim. Thank you, Steven [redacted]Association ManagerGassen Company
I am rejecting this response because: it was not even written by Gassen, it was written by the collection company (lawyer Matthew [redacted]. This complaint is not against him and it does not address the calculations of the debt with adequate proof of what they are for nor does it...
acknowledge or propose a solution or outcome. The response does defame us with accusations of harassment for using freedom of speech against bullies like his firm and for having the audacity to contact you and other consumer protection agencies. As Gassen didn't bother to respond to you themselves, you can clearly see that they do not even respect the Revdex.com and what they do for consumers (referring to it as harassment). I am in contact with the MN Lawyers Board of Professional Responsibility and they seem to be interested in how this is taking place. Matthew [redacted] retaliated against us for sharing what had happened with you by having us served AGAIN with an amended lawsuit showing A higher amount. So much for Revdex.com protection. Also Revdex.com why don't you have the legal action against Gassen companies on their page on your site? The United States Justice Department charged them with discrimination and Gassen entered into a consent order LESS THAN A YEAR AGO! Google it. How can they have the Revdex.com rating that you gave them with THAT horrible history?All Gassen has to do is respond to my complaint and not have someone else write up drivel. Also I would appreciate a solution possibly being presented instead of again more drivel.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/08/28) */
I have attached a copy of the homeowner ledger which identifies was charge against the account and each payment that has been applied. The charges are reflected as Monthly fee ort Special assessment and the payments are reflected as Lockbox...
Payment received and appear as credits ($). I have also attached copies of the payments as provided by the homeowner. You will note that both payments in question are applied against the account. Money order #[redacted] in the amount of $240.00 was applied on February 10, 2015. Cashiers Check # [redacted] in the amount of $240.00 was applied on the account on March 10, 2015.
I believe the problem exists because the homeowner often times sent in payments that resulted in credit balances, in effect paying ahead. You will note on the homeowner ledger no payments were received during the months of April or May 2015. Effectively those months were paid by the credit balances until the next payment was received on June 25, 2015.
Although I do not know the intent of the homeowner when making payments I suspect at some point in time they felt they had paid ahead for the months of May and June when in fact they had not. When asked to provide documentation of the payments they sent in the two (2) payments which are in fact applied to their account.
We will gladly waive any late fees incurred, which to date amount to a total of $45.00. However thisa does still leave a balance due on the account. If there are other payments the homeowner feels were not applied to the account yet cashed all I need is a copy of the front and back of the check and we will reserach further.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2015/08/31) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This association has not told me how much I owe them specifically. Only generic information has been relayed, and no further contact has been made by the association. I would also like to inquire about the $500.00 credit that was discussed verbally roughly 30 days ago.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 11, 2015/09/08) */
The consumer has stated that a Mr. [redacted] made reference that the account had over a $500.00 credit. There is no Mr. [redacted] that works in our office so I do not know who would have made this statement. However if you view the attached homeowner ledger, which I have again attached, there were various times when the consumer did in fact have a credit balance. The credit balances are noted by numbers in parenthesis. The credit balances were caused by the consumer making additional payments against the account. There was in fact a credit balance as of March 10, 2015 in the amount of $588.61 which appears on page 3 of the homeowner ledger. The credit balance was then used up during the months of April and May. Contrary to what the consumer is stating there was no $500.00 credit as of 30 days ago. Again this is evidenced by the attached homeowner ledger.
By removing the $45.00 in accumulated late fees the balance due as of this date $239.39. I am uncertain if this is what the consumer is asking for with the statement "this association has not told me how much I owe them specifically". The recurring monthly association fees are $246.00 per month which the consumer must be aware of since they have sent in $246.00 for the past few months.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/06/23) */
I am writing in response to the complaint you have received from [redacted] regarding this matter.
The Board of Directors of the Devonwood Association has approved the roof and skylights to be replaced on Mr. [redacted] building as well as...
another building at Devonwood; this is starting on June 29th. The Board has worked very diligently to obtain bids and approve one in a timely manner to move forward with this roof replacement project.
Per the documents of the Association, interior damages not covered by the Association insurance policy do fall back onto the owner through their individual HO6 policy. Additionally skylights are an owner matter to be responsible for as well, and this expense will be billed back to Mr. [redacted] after the roof replacement project is completed.
We have been in constant contact with Mr. [redacted] by giving him correspondence backup for the past 3 years and answering numerous emails from him and his real estate agent.
Please contact me should you have any additional questions or need any additional backup regarding this information.
Please let me know if you need anything else from us.Thank you,Tim [redacted]COOGassen Company###-###-####
see attachedThe complaint notice regarding Mr. [redacted] has been received by Gassen Company. Please consider this letter a response to the complaint. In 2015, Huntington Cove HOA hired a paint contractor to paint all exterior wood trim on the 24 association units. Homeowners were notified of...
the project through mailings and via the annual meeting minutes. Each homeowner was assessed $135.00 for the painting of their unit's exterior trim.In March 2016, the Huntington Cove Board of Directors requested that [redacted], Association Manager, place the delinquent homeowner unit accounts with the office of Roeder Smith Jaden. Because the delinquent account was placed with the attorney, all communication regarding the account is directed to the attorney's office. Mr. [redacted] was directed to contract the attorney with any questions regarding his account. Mr. [redacted]'s account was charged $65 for the attorney demand letter and $88.50 for attorney communications. Per the Board's decision, the legal fees will not be waived. Per the Declarations of Huntington Cove, Section 6.1 d, all legal fees incurred by the association in connection with the collection of assessments and the enforcement of the Governing Documents, MCOIA, or the Rules and Regulations may be assessed against the owners unit.
see attached The letter dated April 21, 2016 from the Revdex.com regarding ID [redacted], has been received in the Gassen office. As stated in the previously provided response, the Board of Directors of Huntington Cove HOA will not remove the $65.00 in legal fees from the account of [redacted]. This is a decision by the Board of Directors of Huntington Cove HOA to Gassen Company.
I am rejecting this response because:Steve presented documented false statement as true. He never asked why the deputy was coming and even made it a point to say that when he comes he could knock on the window! Never asked why he'd be there which was to file a report against a prior official as the people he'd need information from would be there, for efficiency. They had filed one with another organization but I was told I could submit that.I did ask a question during the beginning of the meeting while they were looking for the treasurer report, and that was if there would be an OPEN FORUM! To say I was interrupting is odd. I then asked if they could add someone to the agenda which was the deputy.This wasn't about what he responded with, I was asking him to correct some issues. Instead he launches into an Ad hominem attack against me.He didn't address what was brought up here. They passed a sheet asking who wanted physical copies of the financials, not to be told to look on the website which didn't have it until this complaint.Steve didn't seem to change his tone. I also haven't received an apology.No public board meeting since annual meeting in April is unusual and they've met at least a couple of times since then, seems questionable. They could have private sections of the meeting like they did in November, seems very unusual that the whole meeting would be secret. They even discussed things such as putting items on the website and communication, doesn't seem like closed meeting discussion!As for wanting action by owners I was presenting facts. The board didn't want people contacting them.They also were Not putting funds into reserves, how come they didn't appear to be actioning on that?They also weren't getting monthly reports consistently, how come they didn't appear to be actioning on that?Majority of board on there for majority of last 4 years. When I tried to talk to one of them about the issues they didn't even seem interested in replacing the prior property manager and look at all these issues!A board member was also Presenting something documented false as being true at this November board meeting.
I am rejecting this response because:
Dear Mr. [redacted],Thank you for taking the time to look over this case. I'm definitely not satisfied with their response. I understand their justifications for their behavior, and the excessive attorney fees that come along with that. The issue I have is that on their original letter informing me about the painting project, there wasn't a date of when the payment was due. It seems unethical to hire a third party to collect the debt (which correspondence from the attorney ended up costing more than the actual painting bill) when there wasn't an official invoice with a due date to begin with. I've lived in this townhouse for six years under Gassen, and I've never missed a monthly association fee; considering that I pay them $2,500/year, you'd think the least they could do is call or email me reminding me of the painting bill, instead of hiring a debt collector. From the time they sent the original letter up until they hired the debt collector, only about four months had passed (since I've consistently paid my association dues, that should indicate to them that I'm not trying to evade the painting bill). If there had been a due date, I would have paid it by then; if I had known they were going to hire a debt collector and incur unnecessary attorney fees, I would have paid it to prevent that. I have paid the painting bill in its entirety along with legal fees, and now all I am asking for is to get my $65 back.Thanks again for your time. I hope that Gassen can see my perspective on this.Sincerely,[redacted]
I am writing in response to the response from Revdex.com that Gassen received on April 15, 2016. The unit owner of this unit [redacted] believes she does not have to pay for monies owed to the Ridgeview due to filing bankruptcy; she still owes post bankruptcy’s monies that are currently due to Ridgeview. This account has been turned over the Association collection attorney that is hired by the Board of Directors. [redacted] is still the owner and responsible for the outstanding monies she owes Ridgeview HOA. Per the documents of the Association, the Board can legally authorize having the dues accelerated through the end of this fiscal year 2016. The current balance on this account is $7,635.00 as of today. It is clear this owner does not understand the laws however both Gassen and the collection attorney have attempted to do what we can to inform her of this. The outcome would be for this owner to pay in full or present a payment plan to Gassen that I will then present to the Board for consideration. The Board of Directors give Gassen Company direction on all these matters. Gassen does not act on behalf of the Association without Board approval.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/04) */
[redacted]response has been scanned in and converted to text below (original document is available using the online complaint system).
This letter, and all attached documentation, is being sent to you in response to a consumer complaint (Case...
#[redacted]: [redacted]) that was received by me at my office on November 2", 2015. The complaint was made by a previous tenant for a property managed by our office on behalf of our client who is the owner and landlord of the property. I have included documentation and email correspondence with this letter to support the response below to [redacted]'s complaint.
Gassen Company takes professionalism and great service to our clients very seriously. The emails included with this letter will show that the client was treated with professionalism and always responded to within a reasonable timeline so as to try and resolve any and all issues as quickly as possible. The complaint states that "our requests for repairs, due under Minnesota Renter's Rights, went unremedied for months at a time. It took 4 months to replace a broken dishwasher, and it only happened after we spoke to the owner himself." This claim is not accurate. As with all of the properties that Gassen Company manages, permission is required, directly from the property owner/landlord that we represent, in order to approve repairs that will incur a cost above a certain amount. The dishwasher, as is evidenced by the attached emails, was repaired twice in that timeframe by AHS (American Home Shield) at the property owner's request due to the property owner using AHS' appliance home warranty program. The tenant's requested that the dishwasher be replaced and the property owner decided to have it repaired both times that AHS visited the property. After the dishwasher needed to be repaired a 3" time the property owner agreed to replace the dishwasher. All of these repairs and replacement of the dishwasher were conducted as quickly as was possible. Unfortunately, due to the way the AHS is set up, payment of a trip charge is due to the vendor that performs the repair upon completion and the tenants were notified of this ahead of time and were offered immediate reimbursement of any and all charges and/or to deduct the vendor's cost from the rent. Gassen Company was notified by the tenants, including Mr. [redacted], until weeks after scheduled repair dates of any issues with any of the vendors that performed the work at the property and would have taken immediate action to correct any issues once informed.
The previous tenant, [redacted], goes to claim that "The smoke and carbon monoxide detectors were old and some did not even have batteries. We had to request many things in writing countless times. Our home was dirty on the outside and we were promised a powerwash in writing, which never happened" which is also not accurate. Regarding the request and promise for a power
wash by the tenants; a power washing was not promised to the tenants. Prior to the tenant's moving into the property the smoke and carbon monoxide detectors were all in working condition, and the interior of the home was professionally painted and cleaned. As a part of the lease the tenants are given a move-in condition report and asked to return this in order to document the condition of the property in order to compare against their move-out as well as to determine any items needing immediate repair. The move-in condition report was never submitted back to Gassen Company by the tenants, however, any and all emailed items requesting repair were responded to and resolved if and when the property gave consent,
Regarding the tenant's ([redacted]), request for early termination, on September 15", 2015 an email conversation between the tenants and the property owner was forwarded by one of the other tenants to Gassen Company about their request to move out early. This email was dated August 24, 2015 and stated that the tenants could vacate "now" without any early termination fee (after having only lived in the property for 4 months). The tenants did not agree to accept the property owner's offer until September 15" (23 days later). The property owner made the decision that the offer was no longer valid at that point due to nearly a month having passed by and then stated that the tenants would be allowed to be released from their lease early (7 months early) with a one month's rent termination fee of $1750 to be deducted from the security deposit. The tenants contested this and refused the offer and sent threatening emails for 6 days until the property owner agreed to release the tenants from their lease and agreed to return their full deposit, pending an inspection of the unit after the tenants had vacated the property, barring there were no repairs to be made and that the tenants vacated the property by September 30, 2015. The tenants decided to agree to the property owner's terms and move-out date in order to avoid any early lease termination fees. The complaint states that "the management company wanted to keep an entire month's rent as a termination fee if we stayed one day longer", but none of any potential termination fees would have been kept by Gassen Company. Any and all money paid by tenants including rent fees, deposits, late fees, early lease termination fees, etc. are transferred directly to the property owner. Included with this response letter are emails to support the information above.
In regards to Mr. [redacted]'s issue with the security deposit refund and the money withheld for the repairs and cleaning, attached are pictures to show the damage done to the interior walls of the home (all within 5 months and after the entire interior of the home was professionally painted prior to the tenants move-in) as well as some specific areas that warranted the home be cleaned after the tenants had vacated the property. As evidenced by the pictures showing the damage to the walls, there was extensive work that needed to be done in the home in order to repair the walls that had been in perfect condition not more than 5 month's prior to the tenants vacating the property. There is no doubt that these repairs are above normal wear and tear and as a results, and per the lease, the financial responsibility of the tenant. The information and pictures regarding the condition of the property after the tenant's vacated the property was presented to the property owner, The property owner, not Gassen Company, makes all decisions regarding the security deposit refunds and whether or not to withhold any funds for repairs, damages, and/or cleaning. The lease that the tenants signed has a Security Deposit Agreement Addendum which states:
"4. Any determination to withhold all or part of the security deposit is made in the sole discretion of the Owner at the time the move-out inspection is completed by Owner or upon review of the move-out inspection form by Owner. Therefore, Management hereby makes no representations and warranties to Tenant as to owner's decision to withhold all or part of the Security Deposit.
5. Any Claims or challenges made by Tenant to Management related to Owner's disposition of the security deposit shall be directed to Owner, as Owner is required to determine the disposition of the Security Deposit."
The property owner instructed Gassen Company to have the repairs of the walls (patching and painting) and the cleaning be completed and the costs withheld from the tenant's security deposit. As a result of the property owner's decision, the wall/painting repairs and cleaning was scheduled and performed immediately so as to be able to return the tenant's security deposit refund to them within the state required 21 days. Furthermore, the company that cleaned the property was selected specifically because of the cost that was quoted (a 2300 square foot 3 Bedroom 4 Bathroom home) at the total cost of $120 (well below industry standard cost). The painter that painted the home in May agreed to come back and make the repairs (which even involved sanding, priming, and painting a whole wall that the tenants damaged and tried to patch themselves which caused further damage) at a minimal cost of $400 so as to avoid charging the tenants with a higher priced painting vendor. None of the charges for the cost of painting or cleaning were marked up by Gassen Company and the companies used to perform the work have no affiliation to Gassen Company. The cost of the painting/wall repairs and cleaning, if performed by most other contractors, would have likely cost significantly more,
Gassen Company understands that the tenants do not agree with the property owner's decision to withhold the $520 (cost of repairs and cleaning) from their security deposit refund. It is our hope that the tenants understand that it is not Gassen Companies' ability to make any decisions regarding security deposit refunds and that it is the property owner's decision alone as it states in the lease. If there is any additional documentation, statements, or other materials needed for resolution please let me know.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/11/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Thanks for avoiding my question. Again, we want an exact dollar for dollar breakdown of what our money is being spent on. Supplies, paint, repair materials, etc.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/11/12) */
This letter, and all attached documentation, is being sent to you in response to the letter I received from you, dated November 5", stating that the consumer did not accept our previous written response to their complaint. I have included/attached the invoices from the companies that performed the painting and the cleaning at the property so that the consumer, [redacted], can see the exact dollar for dollar breakdown. I have also included a copy of the Security Deposit Refund Letter
Invoice that was provided to the tenants (including [redacted]) that shows the breakdown of the deductions from the security deposit refund.
If there is any additional documentation, statements, or other materials needed for resolution
please let me know.
Final Consumer Response /* (3000, 14, 2015/11/17) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I am completely unsatisfied. Why are you dancing around my request? Again, we were already mailed the generic documents you've provided. I am familiar with how much paint costs per gallon. On what planet does patchwork painting and labor cost $400? How many cans of paint are being used? How many brushes? How much is labor per hour? We could have done it ourselves for less than $25. Ridiculously inflated dollar amount. We don't want your generic responses. The owner made us a promise in writing. We were muscled out of the property by your horrible company and your hostile property manager. Legally, you didn't give us ample time to make a decision and move out. You do you expect people to move out "now". We have all email correspondences if you'd like quotes and examples.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Dear Revdex.com, The complaint submitted by [redacted] St. [redacted] has been resolved with Ms. [redacted]. The $75 in late fees on her account have been removed. Because she is not showing in the Summit at Buck Hill records as an owner she was not receiving association mail or...
notices. She has provided Gassen with documentation showing ownership in the home and Gassen has recommended she contact her county offices to verify she is on the homes warranty deed.The Board of Directors changed the late fee policy and late fee date in early 2016 and Ms. [redacted] did not receive the notice because she was not recognized as an owner but her roommate is listed as the owner. In the future she will receive association information as an owner.Thank you for your time, Kristi [redacted], CMCA, AMSVice President, Association ManagementGassen Company