P C M S Reviews (7)
Jan 09, 2020
Dear Revdex.com: We will start this response by stating that Ms [redacted] ’s homeowners association is the party taking action against her, not PCMS Our firm is only a facilitator We will therefore respond as though the concern/complaint was filed against the homeowners association Ms [redacted] did not provide all of the pertinent information in her complaint to the Revdex.com regarding the notices that have been sent to her on behalf of the Homeowners Association that she chose to reside in Each owner is provided the opportunity to review the Covenants prior to purchasing their home and each owner agrees to abide by such upon purchase of the home Since the purchase of the home in 2014, the Association has provided Ms [redacted] with ample time to bring the landscaping on her lot into compliance The first notice was sent on 7/17/regarding a dead tree on the lot and weeds The following year in it was noted that another tree had died on her lot, turf looked stressed and was not being maintained and weeds were visible on the lot and a notice was sent on 7/16/ As there did not appear to be efforts made to bring the lot into compliance, on 8/12/15, the final notice hearing letter was sent to Ms [redacted] regarding the lack of landscape maintenance on her lot and at that time, she was provided the opportunity to request a hearing with the Board of Directors to dispute the violation or bring the lot into compliance within days or fines of up to $per day could start being applied against her lot She did not pick up either of her hearing notices, both sent via certified mail as required in the Associations enforcement policyThe Associations first fine was issued on 7/26/regarding lack of landscape maintenance and while Ms [redacted] stated she had not received a prior notice regarding the landscape concerns on her lot, that is an inaccurate statement and based on her decision to not pick up her certified letter for her right to have a hearing, the next step in the Associations enforcement process for the landscaping violations would be a fine/penalty The Association has received numerous complaints regarding various concerns at Ms [redacted] ’s home, however, the violation notices sent have been sent after confirmation from representatives in our office that the complaint(s) have validity The Association has several photos of Ms [redacted] s yard from last year where the sod was completely dead and full of weeds The dead trees on her lot have been noted since and no action has been taken to have the trees removed (see attached photo) Recent violations noted in the past months are a broken window in front of the home, a broken screen door laying against the rear of the home for an extended period of time, yard not being watered, weeded or maintained and dead trees on lot not removed It does appear that in the past two weeks, Ms [redacted] has made an effort in bringing the lot into compliance and the sod is showing signs of improvement, while there are still dead/yellow spots in some areas, the majority of the sod appears to be improving It also appears Ms [redacted] has removed the bulk of the weeds that were growing on her lot and has repaired the broken window and removed the screen that was propped against the rear of the home The Association is following the Enforcement Process for the community and on 7/26/when the first fine was issued for lack of maintenance, the Association would stand by that claim that on that date, Ms [redacted] s landscaping was not in compliance with the community standards Ms [redacted] is welcome to submit a written request to the Board of Directors to request that the fine be removed from her account Although our firm is still not clear on why Ms [redacted] felt the need to file a complaint against PCMS regarding her continued violation of the communities covenants, we do appreciate, on behalf of the Association, her efforts in making attempts recently to bring her lot into compliance Moving forward, if a covenant violation is noted on Ms [redacted] ’s lot, a photo will be provided of the specific concern
Dear Revdex.com: The Association has previously responded to all inquiries regarding the notices provided to Ms*** as outlined in the Associations governing documents related to her covenant violations. Ms*** in her most recent statement makes note of a Town of *** suggestion that was actually published regarding the condition of her tree. We would like to clarify that is not a Town ordinance. Ms*** did request consideration from the Association in to allow time for her to see if her tree would survive, which she was provided that opportunity by the Association. It is clear at this point that the tree has not survived and should be removed. Ms*** makes allegations in two different statements that our firm has somehow not complied with *** State law. Both statements are not only misleading and totally inaccurate, but could be construed as defamatory toward our firm Ms***’s statement regarding how we conduct our community inspections and take homeowner complaints are totally without merit and again could be construed as defamatory toward our firm We feel that it would of benefit to both parties, if Ms*** would consider setting up a time that we could meet to not only discuss her concerns, but also help her get better acquainted with the community covenants and the *** State laws regarding community associations and the operations of such by outside firms such as PCMS Respectfully, *** ** *** ***
*** called from the business stated that the refrigerant lines were run on the outer side of the home which was agreed uponHe ran the soffit lines and where they are located is a inch gap, no covering can be put thereHe also stated that you cant pull on the lines or you will crimp them and
Dear Revdex.com: We will start this response by stating that Ms. [redacted]’s homeowners association is the party taking action against her, not PCMS. Our firm is only a facilitator. We will therefore respond as though the concern/complaint was filed against the homeowners...
PCMS did a poor job in conducting violations verification (NONE at all) and issuance of fines to homeowners. The violations issued were for a basket ball hoop sitting on the sidewalk on a cul-de-sac property. This is a case of misidentification of property. Their violations were issued to the incorrect property (it was supposed to be for the house one house away), but because our property was tenanted, and even after payments of what were deemed non verified violations (payments were made, not because it is an admittance of violation, but we gave PCMS the benefit of doubt that they did their job correctly and we were not able to verify with our tenant during those times when the letter of violation/fines were issued). Anyway, even after payments of fines, and even after several emails to insist that they check if they have issued the violation letters correctly, we still received continuing harassment of violation letters on a regular basis and we even received an attorney letter and a statement to indicate that we are responsible for the attorney letter fee - that eventually drove me to call PCMS and met with them during a board meeting to clarify. During the meeting, they finally clarified and admitted that the letters were issued to the wrong property, but because the first few fines were paid without us wasting our time to clarify, they refused to refund the paid fines ($300) which I believe were issued to us incorrectly in the first place. Lesson learnt - Always challenge fine letters issued by your PCMS/HOA, the burden of proof of Violation should be provided by PCMS/HOA and not the owner of property!
P C M S Rating
Description: Property Management
Address: 7208 S Tucson Way Ste 125, Centennial, California, United States, 80112-6748
Add contact information for P C M S