Omni Community Association Managers, LLC

I regret that Mr*** wants to characterize our billing policy as "deceptive," because it is not. His not-for-profit homeowners' association is not like most other 'businesses,' because its interactions with its members are subject to limitations and requirements embedded in recorded documents. In this case, those documents (Deed Restrictions and By-Laws) have an inconsistency in them, which is that the Deed Restrictions call for late fees and interest if a payment remains unpaid "for days after it becomes due...", whereas the By-Laws call for the imposition of a late fee if any payment is not received within days of when it becomes due. Neither instrument refers to how the 'due date' is to be established, but both show a clear intention that the timing of the payment obligation and imposition of late charges is intended to be "on a short leash." The Board has authorized Omni as an interpretive solution to this timing issue, to invoice with the communication that payment is "due immediately" typically communicated as "due upon receipt." We used to show the 'Due Date' as the same date as the invoicing date, but people didn't like that either, but we have to deal with the concept that the consequences of non-payment start, in this case, either or days "after the payment becomes due...". By clearly stating the payment is due immediately/upon receipt, people know they need to pay promptly. In an effort to err, if at all, on the side most favorable to the Association's members, we clarify that consequences for not "paying immediately" don't arise for days from the invoicing date (a date which is shown with specificity under the heading "Date" on the billing Statement). That is communicated on the face of the billing Statement and separately printed in an annual newsletter or comparable mailing that accompanies the billing Statement. The "small print" referred to in Mr***'s complaint, is actually the same size as the print detailing the charges -- except that the reference to the fact that late fees will be assessed on accounts not paid within days is in ALL CAPS. We cannot force people to read the five or six lines of text, but we encourage it in the newsletter (i.e., "please read the mail we send you, it's important"...). Hardly deceptive, we go out of our way in multiple places in multiple documents to emphasize the payment timeline

Mr***' issue is not actually a complaint against Omni, nor really against his HOA -- he should be looking to the title agency, his lawyer (if he had one), the seller, and possibly his lender, all of whom were involved in his closing and did not disclose the existence of the HOA. He
states, with respect to "during the purchase" of the home, "there was an understanding that there was no Home owners association." Neither Omni nor the HOA were parties to the transaction, were not contacted by the seller, Mr*** (or other family members who appear actually to be in title), were not contacted by the title agency that handled the closing, nor any representative of Mr***' lender. We first learned of the transfer of title of this property in early when we completed updating our ownership list through the use of the Franklin County Auditor's records and verified by phone call with the previous owner that the property changed hands. While we regret that it appears that Mr*** was misinformed about the existence of the HOA, he was not misinformed or misled by Omni, nor by anyone having any role with the homeowners' association. Three separate letters were mailed to the property about the homeowners' association, the amount of the dues, and the date by which payment had to be received in order to avoid late fees. None of those letters were returned to our office, meaning they were received at the property. We did not receive any communication from Mr*** until the same day he chose to complain to the Revdex.com. Even if it is assumed that Mr*** had no actual knowledge of his dues payment obligation, the transfer fee ($75) is payable upon every property sale, regardless of whether we were advised "at the time of the sale" that a transaction was taking place. The transfer fee was not increased in any way due to the delay, so there is no basis for a suggestion that Mr*** shouldn't have to pay it now that we've learned the property transferred (the actual title transfer occurred in November, according to the Auditor's records, regardless of when the 'closing' took place or when the buyers moved in). The fact that Mr*** apparently did not have a lawyer representing him as a buyer at the closing (if he did, he should contact the attorney now to ask why that lawyer didn't advise him that buying a property in his subdivision included mandatory membership in an HOA), the fact that the title agency and lender did not request a HOA certification, and the fact that the seller did not disclose the existence of the HOA, do not relieve him of his legal obligations under recorded documents (the deed restrictions). We have no evidence that the multiple mailings that were sent since the time Mr*** apparently took possession of the property, were not delivered. Under this combination of factors, the late fee is a legitimate charge to the account for his property. The HOA is as innocent a 'victim' as Mr*** himself, in the failures of those who were actually involved in his closing to properly communicate that ownership in Meadow Grove Estates includes membership in and obligations to, an HOA

Our records do reflect that Ms. [redacted] contacted us in April of 2017, after she received the Legal Warning Letter that was the source of the fee on her account that carried forward from 2017 into 2018.  Legal Warning Letters are sent after an account has not been paid within 30 days following...

the original invoicing (sent January 20, 2017) and an additional 15 days has passed without payment being received after a reminder statement (with late fee assessed) is also sent (sent March 8, 2017).  That reminder cautions that payment needed to be submitted within 15 days to avoid having the account referred for legal collection, including the imposition of the $75 Legal Warning Letter fee.  15 days after the late fee statement was sent was March 23, 2017.  The Legal Warning Letter was not sent until April 18, 2017, giving her more than 3 weeks of a 'grace period' as measured back to the late fee statement before the additional charges were added to the account, in spite of her being informed that she had to make payment by March 23.  When she called on April 19, Ms. [redacted] was told to allow a few more days to pass before stopping payment on the check she said she had mailed, and in fact, her check arrived at the bank's dropbox location in Arizona later that day, and was processed.  Her check (copy attached) was dated April 7, 2017, approximately 2 weeks after the date by which payment had to be made to avoid the Legal Warning Letter.  Regrettably, the check did not arrive before the Legal Warning Letter was actually sent and the charges had been added to her account.  The Legal Warning Letter had a Statement attached to it that showed the full balance owed, including the charge for the Legal Warning Letter itself.  That means that when Ms. [redacted] contacted us with the Legal Warning Letter in hand, she had a Statement showing a balance of $246.30 on her account.  Her April 7 check, received April 19, was in the amount of $169.34, leaving an upaid balance on her account of $76.96 (the Legal Warning Letter fee, plus accrued interest).  Simply put, Ms. [redacted] waited too long, beyond the dates she was specifically advised by which payment had to be made, and fell victim to the fact that her check didn't arrive for processing until after additional charges had been placed on her account.  Because she waited too long to make payment, additional work had to be done, the account was referred for legal collection, costs were incurred, and the charges can't be reversed since her own check shows that she didn't make payment until well after the date by which she was told payment had to be made to avoid those charges. I am not clear on the statement that Ms. [redacted] had to call 7 times to reach someone at Omni to discuss her account.  Our phone system gives every caller the option of leaving a message if an operator is not immediately available.  The operator she did speak with did give her the correct answer (no adjustment could be made), an e-mail was sent confirming that answer, and the need for multiple phone calls appears to be her additional efforts to get a different answer.  It is not a "lack of real assistance" to provide the correct answer to a question when it is asked, the true complaint appears to be that the answer that was desired was not given.  The issue was actually "resolved" on the first attempt, Ms. [redacted] just didn't like what that resolution was.  Given proof that payment was made or even legitimately attempted prior to the date on which payment was due, adjustments could have been made to the account (and Ms. [redacted] was told that in an e-mail from our accounting office).  But her own check reveals that payment was not timely tendered, and as such, no adjustment can be made.

The main issue was not addressed. It's not about the sign, I have already resolved that with the business. I want the billing to include a definitive DUE DATE, and not the generic "due upon receipt' with small print at the bottom that no one reads. Stop being deceptive and just put a due date on the bill. I believe everyone would benefit and be satisfied with this measure.

Mr. [redacted]'s complaint infers that we "held" his check and did not process it timely.  This is not accurate.  His account record shows that his payment was processed as a "dropbox" payment, meaning he mailed the payment (correctly) to a banking center that processes checks on an automated...

basis.  Omni neither receives nor processes checks, the bank does.  Checks are processed on the same day they are received, and are posted electronically to the owner's account on that same day.  In this case, the late fee was charged to his account on the 14th, at which point it was almost two weeks 'late.'  His payment arrived at the bank and was processed on the 15th.  We have no way of knowing when someone deposits their check into the mail, which is one of the reasons we encourage the use of online payment facilities, which incur no additional fee unless done with a credit card or by having us process it by phone on the customer's behalf.  This year's mailings included detailed instructions on how to log on to Caliber Web where online electronic payments can be made without charge, eliminating the risks of delayed mail.  It appears in this case that regardless of when the mail was delivered by the customer to the Post Office, it did not arrive until the 15th of May by which time the late fee had already been assessed.  Omni has adopted a specific policy with respect to late payments, which is published on our Help Desk website:  Late Fees; Statement Fees; Legal Warning Letters -- Why Not WaivedWe receive requests, frequently, for the waiver (removal from an account) of fees that have been charged as "Late Fees", "Statement Fees" and "Legal Warning Letter Fees."  Omni has a standardized policy in this regard, which is that such fees are not waived, adjusted or removed from owners' accounts, unless the original mailing of the invoice/statement comes back to Omni marked "undeliverable" by the Post Office, or unless the fees have been charged as a result of some error being made by Omni (such as mailing the original invoice/statement to the wrong address).   We have invested a great deal of money into equipment to ensure we have an invoice for every resident, that every resident's mailing has a first class stamp on their statement, and we hand-deliver the mail across the counter to the postman in the Grove City Post Office.  This is all done to ensure that on our end, all mailings are handled so as to make sure residents receive their bills.  Our policy is intended to be equitable to everyone in our managed communities, and we do not waiver from it.  Without such a policy, we are left in the position of having to make a 'judgment call' when someone contacts us with a 'reason' that to the resident, excuses untimely payment.  Having discretion means sometimes telling someone their 'excuse' is not believable or adequate -- and we will not put our employees in the position of having to say such things to our residents.  Additionally, when payments are not received by us on time, extra work has to be done.  There is extra bookkeeping, letter preparation, and printing and mailing costs.  The Late Fees, Statement Fees and Legal Warning Letter Fees cover the costs associated with that work.  We try hard to ensure that all communications that are sent include cautions about the consequences of late payment (or non-payment), and they are designed to encourage everyone to pay in full and on time.We are aware and regret that when collection fees are incurred, residents are unhappy that we don't waive them.  However, we believe strongly that having a solid and practical policy is important in serving the long-term interests of the Association by encouraging the prompt receipt of payment in full by the Association of all assessments that are invoiced.In Mr. [redacted]'s case we know there was no issue with his bill being mailed and delivered to him, the problem apparently arose in connection with his or the Post Office's handling of the payment.  Neither Omni nor the Association have responsibility for the delivery from the resident to the HOA (through the bank), and if Mr. [redacted] is confident that he mailed his payment in a timely fashion, then his complaint is with the Post Office, not with Omni nor with the HOA.  We do note in this regard, that in the vast, vast majority of cases, mail sent to the bank from Central Ohio arrives at the bank's dropbox facility within one to two business days.  Based on the factual delivery of the mail in this case to the banking center on the 15th, following the imposition of the late fee on the 14th, and in reliance upon the published policy regarding late fees, we are not able to waive the fee charged to Mr. [redacted]'s account.  He may pay the fee without additional charge by logging into Caliber Web and using the online echeck payment option.

I am sorry that Ms. [redacted] feels she is being "harassed" by being required to follow the rules that were put in place by the developer of her subdivision.  Omni had nothing to do with the decision being made to require, as she states, that trash cans have to be "inside of an approved structure"...

or "screened from view."  Those rules were put in place through deed restrictions that were recorded prior to her purchase of her home, and she bought her home subject to an obligation to follow those rules.  Our job, as the HOA's manager, is to enforce the rules.  We don't have the power to ignore rules we might not like, and we don't make the decisions for the community -- we serve at the pleasure of the Board, and take our instructions from the Board, and one of those instructions is to send violation letters to owners whose properties do not comply with the requirements of the deed restrictions.  A complaint against Omni, made because Ms. [redacted] doesn't like the fact that she has to follow the rules of her community, is not reflective of anything negative about Omni, it simply shows we're doing our job.  Because the trash can screening issue has become a sizeable issue in her community, we have agreed to reduce the normal processing fee for Design Review applications for trash can screens for the next month or so, to less than 1/2 of the normal amount.  Far from harassing, we are doing our best and effectively sharing in the cost of seeing the community's appearance improve.  That should boost values and make owners happy.

My credit score is over an 800.  I do my my bills on time when they are mailed to the correct address which in the past psam did not.  Regarding your non profit status, why is it your website offers 500 for a referral, that seems counterintuitive for a non profit organization to offer kickbacks.  That's not the point though. The person was rude and argumentative on the phone with me which I don't tolerate.  I sent the bill the day I received it.  If you delayed your processing of it on either end that is not my issue, yet you feel it appropriate to charge a late fee.  As a non profit, who does that late fee go to?  My community, surely not.  I believe you send the bill for the hoa in a tardy fashion to induce late fees to your non profit entity that profits off of said late fee.  You also charge fees that are quite high to pay via credit card, which a non profit shouldn't profit off of a merchant account that you more than likely receive proceeds from as well that don't go directly to the HOA. Also, I'm quite certain a pool can be run without a heater for 10s of thousands less than whoever you are paying to do it.  Again, that's moot.  But maybe your non profit HOA could actually solicit bids or more bids for this work.  Try harder to negotiate contracts instead of illicit and unfounded late fees for not mailing your invoices in a timely manner or letting your mail sit in the outbox. This is 25 bucks.  I honestly could care less about 25 bucks, but in principle your organization is doing people wrong.  Just like countless  other HOA companies out there that are easily found online when doing research about how HOA companies conduct their business practices.  Next time I am in that area I will make sure to drive by the pool that I think somehow has taken around a million dollars to maintain without a heater and laugh.

I was expecting Mr. [redacted]'s complaint, as he is an admitted member of the "give me what I want or I'll complain to the Revdex.com" club.  To aid in his understanding, our A- rating is based largely on the fact that we have, under management, approximately 25,000 homes and units.  That...

means, that in a 3 year period, there are 75,000 billing interaction opportunities with our customers based on a once-per-year billing assumption, and in fact many of our managed communities have monthly billing, many others have quarterly or semi-annual billings.  Adding in violation communications, meetings, neighbor disputes and the other realities of our business, there are well in excess of 150,000 communications exchanges between our personnel and homeowners in the Revdex.com reporting period.  Thirty complaints in three years, out of more than (conservatively) 150,000 customer interactions, represents a dissatisfaction rate of two ten-thousandths.  That's .0002.  Add to that reality, that our business consists of billing people for amounts they don't want to pay, and telling them they have violations on their properties that have to be removed, and it is abundantly clear that if we did not have exceptional customer service, and exceptional communications skills, and a deep care for the communities we manage and the people who live in them, there is no way we could have the infinitesimal complaint rate described above.  We are not "Revdex.com Certified" by choice.  I personally have philosophical issues with an organization that has, as part of its quality rating system, consideration of whether the company pays a fee for the rating.  I have agreed many times to submit to Revdex.com policies and procedures, including its arbitration system, but I refuse to pay for a rating.Regarding Mr. [redacted]'s "complaint," it can be put simply that some people equate "poor customer service" with "not getting the answer they wanted."  In Mr. [redacted]'s case, he communicated directly with the two chief executive officers of our organization (tell me how often that happens when someone calls any other business), and was told consistently and concisely that the issue he was complaining about is not a simple one, and that our policy has been developed over 15 years in an effort to be as fair and reasonable to all owners in our communities as possible.  Yes, unfortunately he "drew the short stick" with regards to being one of the people for whom the Postal delivery service (not Omni, the Postal Service) failed him.  We explained that the alternative choices we have include charging everyone more to cover the costs of the work we have to do in instances when some people don't get their mail, which is not an attractive solution to the vast majority of owners who receive their mail and pay their bills timely.  We also explained that our policy also addresses the reality that if late fees were not consistently enforced, the ability of a community's HOA maintaining a priority for timely payment would suffer substantially.  Our policy is explained in detail on our Help Desk Knowledgebase, accessible at www.omnihoa.com.  Mr. [redacted] doesn't like the policy, any more I suspect than he would like, as someone who paid on time and in full, having to pay more in his annual dues if the reason was that we are waiving the late fees that otherwise would have been charged to his neighbors.  He is correct, we could add roughly $10 to $15 to everyone's bill to send all of the bills certified, the purpose of which would be to protect the small number of owners who claim not to have received the mail.  Put as concisely as possible, our policy is the best choice among no perfect choices.  If Mr. [redacted] has a reasonable alternative (not one that increases everyone's cost by almost as much as the individual late fee would be), we would be happy to consider it.I am compelled to note the lack of credibility that flows from his name-calling ("shady", "money-hungry leech", users of "fringe legalities" in a "barely legal" business) without an iota of knowledge of "what kind of people we are".  I am personally adding his name to the prayer board we maintain in our office for those in our communities who are in need of prayer coverage.  He is invited to visit our office and observe how hard we work to address the needs of our communities, how personally we take the struggles of the people with whom we interact on a daily basis, and fight to be of service to them.  Just as a caring parent must sometimes say 'no' to a child who doesn't understand why he/she can't have his/her way, we are sometimes compelled (for legitimate and explained reasons) to say 'no' when a customer calls and asks for fee waivers.  That doesn't make us bad people.  In fact, I've had many instances of owners in our managed communities who have worked closely with us (mostly elected Board members) coming to me to ask for a job because of the quality of the organization and of the people working here.  And I long ago lost count of the people who had an experience like Mr. [redacted]'s, who later ran for and got elected to their Board with the goal of changing managers, who then got to know us, understand our policies and reasons for them, and who then endorsed us strongly as the best management solution for their community.I regret that we had to say 'no' to Mr. [redacted] because we never 'want' anyone to have to pay a late fee, especially if the reason truly was a matter outside of anyone's control.  But under the policies we've enforced as evenly and equally as possible for several years, we had to say 'no.'  I regret more, that he equates being told 'no' with the concept of 'poor customer service.'  In that, he's simply wrong.

I believe this customer's issues have been resolved through additional communications. Although Ohio law does limit our ability to provide information regarding enforcement activity related to any other property owners, the general processes that the Board has approved for Omni to use have been...

explained. To my knowledge, her concerns have been addressed and she is satisfied that there is no 'secrecy' involved, just a misunderstanding when she called in, as to what information she was looking for. If she requires further answers, we will do our best to provide them to the extent we are not limited by legal requirements not to disclose.

[redacted] is an owner in one of our managed communities.  The generic complaint that we "refuse to obey our contract" is difficult to respond to, but the specificity of  her "Desired Settlement" (...we want speed humps and excessive parking to stop...) reveals what she's really...

concerned about.  She is correct that we have received several complaints over the years about speeding in [redacted].  In fact, in 2012 on behalf of the community we petitioned the City of [redacted] for the installation of speed bumps.  The City controls the streets, the HOA has no power or right to install speed bumps, or to regulate parking in any way, shape or form.  [redacted] was advised of this in writing, within 24 hours of her only communication to Omni regarding her complaint about speeding and parking in the community.  In 2012 in response to our request of the City, the City actually performed a traffic study and determined that the main drive into [redacted] qualifies for speed bumps, and installation locations were designed.  However, the City of [redacted] requires as a pre-condition to the installation of speed bumps, that at least 70% of all property owners who live adjacent to the area in which the speed bumps are proposed for installation, must consent in writing to having them installed.  We sent a direct mailing to all owners whose input was necessary, including the documents from the City that described the process and requirements, a simple ballot for people to "vote" on having the speed bumps installed, and a self-addressed stamped envelope for their use in responding.  The people in front of and adjacent to whose homes the bumps were proposed for installation, overwhelmingly elected to not support the installation of the speed bumps.  I'm sorry that [redacted] (who moved into the community in 2014 according to our records) was not aware that a significant effort was made to accomplish exactly what she wants, but that it failed because enough of the others in the community disagree.  Until and unless there is significant support from the owners most directly affected by the installation of speed bumps, the issue can't be revisited.

: Again the company is not addressing the issue at hand as to contradictory language on the invoicing statements it sends out.  The newsletter does not publish a fee and fine schedule, only the assessments for dues.  I would now also like to have a copy of the contract and service level agreements for our neighborhood with Omni.As to the account in question:The late and statement fee that has a ledger date of 3/29/2016 and 5/25/2016 totaling $35 was paid on June 6th in full. The 2nd half assessment with a 6/3/2016 ledger date that has a balance of $225 is scheduled for payment before any late fees would be assessed. 
Regards,
Paul [redacted]

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: 10635470
I am rejecting this response because:This response does not solve my issue as I was told by the representative that the late fee would be charged when the bill was late and that the bill was considered late on the 15 th of May but the late fee was charged on the 14 th of May. I will pay the late fee so no more fees will be charged but grouping all situations into a general response is a poor business practice knowing that all situations can differ and not processing a bill for two weeks after mailing so that a late fee can be incurred is the outlook I take away from this issue. 
Regards,
Dereck [redacted]

Mr. [redacted]'s issues point to several areas of confusion about what should be a fairly simple process.  Yes, we invoice 4 times per year in his community -- we recommended this to the Board (and the Board agreed) when the dues increased from $400 per year to $600 per year, and the belief was...

that it better served the owners to spread out the payment obligation rather than invoicing for a single, $600 payment.  He is the first and only person to complain about this decision (a decision, by the way, which costs us more to implement because of additional mailings and processing, costs which we have not passed along to the community).  If he prefers to pay $600 in a lump sum, or even to spread it to two $300 payments, he is welcome to do so as long as he meets the minimum quarterly amount that the invoices reflect -- and therein lies the problem in this case.  Although the [redacted]s moved in to the community in February of 2014, they did not pay their second half 2014 dues.  They were invoiced in July, and again in October for the $150 quarterly dues amounts (the first half of the year was paid at their closing).  They made no payments toward those invoices.  As a result, in December of 2014 they received a $25 late fee; meaning they started 2015 already owing $325 before the 2015 first quarterly assessment was even invoiced.  They paid $325 in January, covering the 2014 delinquency, but they did not pay the first quarter 2015 dues which were invoiced two weeks before they paid their 2014 balance.  The second quarterly invoice for 2015 was sent April 1.  At that point, their account balance was $300 (we had not charged a late fee yet even though the first quarter 2015 dues were 3 months late).  By the time the [redacted]s made their first payment toward their 2015 dues ($300 paid in June, 5 months late for Q1, 1 month late for Q2), a late fee had been charged.   In like fashion, the third quarterly assessment, dated July 1, did not get paid until the end of September, by which time it too had incurred a late fee (and they had incurred an additional fee for having a legal warning letter sent to them).  They paid their balance, which covered the third quarter assessment, late fees, interest and legal warning letter fee, on September 28.  On October 1, the fourth quarter invoice for 2015 was issued.  As of today it has not been paid and has incurred a late fee and interest.The comment that "working with Omni has been an absolute nightmare" is curious, in and of itself, because during the entire timeframe described above, we have had only two calls (both on the same day and within minutes of each other) from the [redacted]s.  Mrs. [redacted] called shortly before we received the payment referred to above in late September (and before the fourth quarter was even invoiced).  She was told that the payments they had made in 2015 had been applied first to the unpaid 2014 balance, then toward 2015 dues, explaining why they still had a balance.  She then spoke with her husband, called us right back and asked to have all late fees and collection charges removed from the account.  She was advised of our policies, and within a matter of several days we received payment.  Since that time we have received no communications from the [redacted]s.Relative to the "...they never send you a bill..." comment: we invoice using a document titled "Statement" because it shows not just the 'new' currently invoiced amount, but also previous balances and any payments applied.  It refers to payment being due 'immediately,' shows the balance due, and cautions that payments not received within 30 days of the billing date (shown right on the front of the Statement) will result in a $25 late fee.  It is a "Bill" in every sense of the word.  The referenced Statement that is sent 'a month later' was either a late fee Statement, or a Statement sent when they made only a partial payment in June, reminding them that they still had an unpaid balance on their account.  So, from the standpoint of the financial aspect of Mr. [redacted]'s "complaint," the problem arose when he failed to make dues payments for 2014, and failed to make payments in 2015 in a timely manner.  The request that the balance be removed is essentially them asking that the 2014 non-payment be rewarded by the removal of part of the 2015 charges.  We don't have the authority to do that, and would not do it even if we did.Regarding site conditions, we've received no complaints from the [redacted]s, and his comments appear more to be an effort to make his Revdex.com complaint appear more substantial.  Lights were out at the entrance for a short period of time as a result of construction activity.  We visit the subdivision every 10 days to inspect conditions, AND have a third-party company do lighting inspections specifically to ensure continuing functionality and operation of the lights.  The Association has no responsibility (or right) to handle private lot maintenance on 'unoccupied lots'.  The reference to "...homes have been allowed to be build (sic) that cheapen our neighborhood..." is a reference to a builder that did not follow the requirements of the Deed Restrictions for prior plan approval, and who was sued by the Association as a result.  Changes were made on some of the items involved, and a Court order allowed the home to remain in its condition.  Contrary to the inferences in Mr. [redacted]'s complaint, we are actively involved in providing the environment in which he can say he's happy with his community."...Nearly every homeowner in our neighborhood..." -- if Mr. [redacted] is an elected spokesperson for everyone, that has happened without our knowledge.  He should know that several of his neighbors have communicated thanks to us for the quality of the job we do.  Some have had site issues, or payment issues that have had to be resolved, but all have been handled in a professional and courteous manner.  We regret that Mr. [redacted] is as upset as he is by the problems that have resulted from his non-payment and late payment of his bills. He needs to know, however, that "getting rid" of Omni will not remove the Association, it will not change his obligation to pay his assessments, and he will still see consequences if he continues to not pay, or pay late.

Naturally we are not happy when any of our customers is dissatisfied with the procedures and policies of managing their community.  However, this particular owner raises issues that simply do not warrant a complaint that we have done anything wrong.  Annual invoicing was done on April 6,...

2015, payment was not received until May 19.  Yes, the face of the invoice says that it is due "Upon Receipt" instead of containing a specific "date", but it also says that if payment is not received and processed within 30 days, late fees and interest will be charged.  Supplemental to the information on the face of the Statement, we pay to print and deliver a full color newsletter that also warns owners that payment has to be received and processed within 30 days of the invoicing date, or late fees will be charged.  This concept is not foreign to Mrs. [redacted], as she and her husband incurred late fees in 2010 and 2014, and only avoided them in 2011 and 2013 because we delayed charging them (in those years their payments were also 'late,' but received before we assessed the late fees).  Each time late fees have had to be charged to their account, the [redacted] have called in, yelled at our staff members and hung up the phone, usually accompanied by threats, i.e. "...if you don't remove the late fee we won't pay anything..." or this year, "...remove the late fee or we'll complain to the Revdex.com...".  The [redacted]' account was late, approximately 43 days having passed after invoicing, when the late fee was assessed.  As a matter of coincidence, their payment arrived at the bank processing center in Arizona on the same day the late fee was charged, but processing is done on an automated basis at the end of the day and account posting that reflected receipt on 19th of May actually hits our system on the 20th.  The late fee was charged and mailed before the payment was actually processed, even though both events show the occurrences on the 'same date'.  This was not a case of us 'jumping the gun and charging the late fee before it was appropriate,' the late fee could have been charged almost 2 weeks earlier when the [redacted]' payment became 'late'.  Every owner in the community (and frankly almost every owner in virtually all 115 communities we manage in a 3 state area) received the same type of Statement, saying payment was due upon receipt and would incur late fees if not paid within 30 days -- and the vast, vast majority of owners have no problem understanding and making timely payment.  Especially having been so upset about having late charges last year and a few years ago, the [redacted] should have had no problem understanding that they were at risk for a late fee when they waited almost 45 days to pay a bill marked "Due Upon Receipt."Omni has managed this community for several years.  We regularly attend meetings, and are in the community approximately every 10 days.  The [redacted] did not attend the recent Annual Meeting of the Association.  Names of candidates for Directors are not included on the Annual Meeting Notice, because candidates are nominated from the floor at the meetings.  Ms. [redacted]'s call was forwarded by our Community Manager assigned to the subdivision, to our Accounting Department, because the issue is an accounting issue not a site management issue.  Pursuant to the Association's published and consistent policies on late fees, the fee will not be waived on the [redacted]' account.  They can avoid these types of charges in the future by making full, timely payment of their account.

We have had several communications with this owner over the yeas (and/or the owner's spouse or child, we've received different information at different times), regarding the assertion that the owner was not required to be a member of the Association.  Deed Restriction filings made in the 1989 -...

1991 time frame, combined with Ohio's adoption of the Planned Community Act in 2010, resulted in the Association's determination that all home owners in [redacted] Farm, including owners in Section 1 (where this owner's lot is located) are required to be members as of, at the latest, 2010.  Even so, dues assessments on this lot did not commence until 2012 and have never been paid by this owner.  There have been two lawsuits filed affecting this issue, in the first of which the Association's claim was found to be correct, that all Section 1 owners are required to be members and pay dues.  The second found otherwise, and is still pending appeal rights.  If it is ultimately determined by a Court of Final Jurisdiction that this owner was not required to pay dues, a refund will be issued.  The only finalized court action to date, says otherwise, which is why payment was required under the terms of the Association's documents and Ohio law.

I wrote and posted a lengthy response to this complaint several days ago.  I'm disappointed the Revdex.com's system apparently did not function properly when I took significant time to research the underlying allegations and respond to them.  In any event, I have, since then, exchanged a...

series of e-mails with Mr. [redacted] reviewing the items raised in his complaint, explaining that we don't get to "pick and choose" which signs we like and allow to stay, by comparison to those we don't like and ask to have removed -- instead, virtually all signs are prohibited by the deed restrictions applicable to his community, and even if we 'agree with the message,' we are required to send notice that the sign must be removed.  We communicated about, and I believe he understands now, our billing procedures and policies, and why we have them; and I have the impression at this point that, although he still may not like what the rules require or how billing procedures affected him, he understands and does not feel that we are "little hitlers" anymore, and I believe he appreciated the time taken to communicate and explain matters to him.  He can confirm or challenge my perceptions if he feels additional communication is desireable.

I don't know where the concept came from that the bill was "due on the 15th."  The annual invoicing occurred on April 2.  On its face, the invoice noted that payments not received within 30 days would incur a late fee.  A separate, full-color newsletter was sent that included the following language: 
Dues are payable upon receipt and will incur late fees if not received and processed within 30 days of  the statement date.  
The 30th day after the statement date was May 2, not May 15. The newsletter also contained references to the various methods that could be used to make payment, including online by use of Caliber Web.  Mr. [redacted]'s payment, mailed on April 30, was timed to risk a late fee even if no Post Office mishandling occurred (delivery 2 days later would have been the 30th day, and if the mail took 3 days, it would have been 'late').  We delayed assessing the late fee an additional two weeks beyond the due date, and as of the 14th, his payment had not yet been received.  Mailings are clear and contain cautions regarding late fees for untimely payments.  Mr. [redacted]'s payment arrived approximately 45 days after the statement date, and the fact that the late fee was assessed the day before his mailing reached the bank simply means its arrival was after the end of a generous "grace period".  Our policies are clear in such circumstances, and have been published and explained.   We regret that he is unhappy with the consequences.

I am sorry that Ms. [redacted] feels she is being "harassed" by being required to follow the rules that were put in place by the developer of her subdivision.  Omni had nothing to do with the decision being made to require, as she states, that trash cans have to be "inside of an approved structure" or "screened from view."  Those rules were put in place through deed restrictions that were recorded prior to her purchase of her home, and she bought her home subject to an obligation to follow those rules.  Our job, as the HOA's manager, is to enforce the rules.  We don't have the power to ignore rules we might not like, and we don't make the decisions for the community -- we serve at the pleasure of the Board, and take our instructions from the Board, and one of those instructions is to send violation letters to owners whose properties do not comply with the requirements of the deed restrictions.  A complaint against Omni, made because Ms. [redacted] doesn't like the fact that she has to follow the rules of her community, is not reflective of anything negative about Omni, it simply shows we're doing our job.  Because the trash can screening issue has become a sizeable issue in her community, we have agreed to reduce the normal processing fee for Design Review applications for trash can screens for the next month or so, to less than 1/2 of the normal amount.  Far from harassing, we are doing our best and effectively sharing in the cost of seeing the community's appearance improve.  That should boost values and make owners happy.

No one ever said Omni is a non-profit entity.  My previous response specifically stated that the HOA is a non-profit corporation, Omni is simply the managing agent for the HOA.  We are not a non-profit entity, and as previously stated, we charge for our services.  I highly doubt that Mr. [redacted] works for free, and neither do we.  It is curious that the vast, vast, majority of owners in his community received their bills and paid them on time.  We don't know Mr. [redacted] personally and have no reason to hold his invoice prior to mailing it, nor to delay processing his payment (as if we could somehow cause that to happen at an automated bank drop box thousands of miles away from our office).  We hand deliver the mail to the Post Office with first class postage affixed, there is no "out basket."  The credit card fees he refers to are charged by the bank, not by the HOA, and not by Omni.  If he doesn't want to pay with a credit card several alternative, "free", options are provided.  His "certainty" that a pool can be run "for 10s of thousands less" simply highlights that in 'disputing' our response, he has no knowledge to support his arguments.  The pool contract has been bid, and re-bid with different providers over the years, and is currently managed by the best, most responsive pool manager we have had the pleasure of working with -- at a rate that is less than what other bidders proposed.  The pool in Mr. [redacted]'s community requires 2 to 3 lifeguards whenever it is open, and has two large pumps, filtration systems, automated chemical feeders, safety equipment and pool furniture, all of which require maintenance and supervision to operate.  The annual pool management contract combined with building maintenance, chemical costs, licensing and the costs of meeting regulatory requirements, is approximately $58,000.00 for the year, not "around a million dollars."  Divided by the approximate 580 occupied homes in the community served by the pool, the pool cost is about $100 per household for the year, which is less than most municipal pools charge for pool use.  Mr. [redacted] has no support for or evidence of his claim that the "person was rude and argumentative on the phone with [him]...", by comparison we have three people who sit within 10 feet of her desk who were amazed at how well she behaved in the face of his outrageous swearing and disrespectful railing on the phone.Mr. [redacted] has been rude, inappropriate, nasty to our staff (similar to his behavior in 2011 when he incurred a late fee for not paying his bill on time).  He has fictionalized "support" for his "arguments" and has no factual basis to support the 'complaints' he is making.  He has misdirected any criticism he has about pool costs at Omni, when in fact all contracting and monetary decisions are made by the Board, not by us.  The bottom line is that his bill was paid late, and there were consequences to that reality.  Even if this was the first bill he ever paid late in his life (which we know not to be true since he's even paid the association late before), this bill was late, so his credit score is irrelevant.  This complaint is an example of someone using the Revdex.com to attack a company because he doesn't like the natural consequences of his own actions, not a report of inappropriate business practices.

Mr. [redacted]'s account was not paid in full or on time, and as a result he incurred a Late Fee and a Statement Fee.  Clear language contained on the Billing Statement sent to him, and in his community's newsletter, state that payment had to be received within 30 days of the date printed on his...

Statement (February 25, 2016), or he would incur late fees and collection charges.  His payment was made 35 days after the Statement Date, and two days after the late fee had been assessed.  I regret that he is dissatisfied that these charges were incurred, but they stem from his inaction (not making payment until after the late fee had already been charged, and then not making a full payment).  Our policies and procedures in this regard are published and consistently applied, and there exists no justification in Mr. [redacted]'s circumstances that call for deviation.  He didn't pay on time, and he didn't pay in full.  I do not understand his complaint that we don't provide documents on our late fee rates/schedule, as this information is printed on the documents sent to and made available to him in the billing process.