The AOAO of the Pearl Number Two

Dear Mr. [redacted]:Thank you for your email.  As mentioned in my email of November 14, 2017, the Association does not consent to the publication of any documents pertaining to this matter on the Revdex.com website for public viewing.  However, if the Revdex.com plans to publish them in any event, the Association requests that [redacted] and [redacted] be referred to using only their first and last initials (i.e. D.H and I.M.) and that [redacted] and his company, [redacted], be referred to as the Association’s “Contractor” in an effort to protect their privacy.  The Association appreciates your efforts and the efforts of the Revdex.com in attempting to assist the parties in finding a resolution of the matter and regrets that the Complainant remains unsatisfied.  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.Sincerely, *. [redacted]

Dear Mr. Espiritu:This email shall serve as a response to your email dated November 9, 2017Even though the Complainant has stated that he/she has no objections to the use of his/her name, I will honor the Revdex.com’s request that the Complainant (although the Complainant is not a “customer”) not be mentioned by name.  I note that the Complainant states that he/she does not intend to refrain from identifying persons in his/her responses.  The Association objects to the Complainant’s use of names and identifying information. This will confirm that the Association offered to retain [redacted], at the Association's expense, but the Complainant declined the offer. This offer was made verbally on June 9, 2017 prior to and during the June 9, 2017, Board meeting.   It is not stated in writing.   While you have not asked for a response to any other issues, I would note that the Complainant complains that the Association’s response to your office of October 18, 2017, was “extremely late.”  The Association’s response was not late.  The Association received a letter from your office dated October 4, 2017, asking for a response within fourteen days.  Fourteen days from October 4, 2017, was October 18, 2017.  The Association’s response was delivered to your office on October 18, 2017, within the stated deadline. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions in connection with this matter.Sincerely, *. [redacted]

This law firm represents the Association of Apartment Owners of "The Pearl" Number Two ("Association"). This letter will constitute the response of the Association to the above-referenced Complaint filed by an owner of an apartment in "The Pearl" Number Two condominium project. In compliance with...

the letter dated October 4, 2017 from your office asking that the Association's response not include information that identifies the complainant, I have not named the owner in this letter. The owner will be referred to as the "Complainant" and the owner's apartment will be referred to as the "Apartment." I have used "his/her" in order to keep the references to Complainant gender neutral. I note that the Complaint not only identifies the Complainant by name but it also identifies by name the president of the Association and at least one other person. I understand that the Bureau ("Revdex.com") will redact all names before posting the Complaint on its website.Claim for $1,479.85 as Reimbursement for Electricity Charges.Complainant alleges that he/she has been overcharged in the amount of $1,479.85 in electricity charges going back to June 28, 2013. The Association denies this allegation. Complainant has not been overcharged for electricity. The electricity used by the Apartment is measured by a separate meter
and Complainant has been charged for the electricity used as measured by that meter, with the exception discussed below during the period that the meter did not provide data.The spreadsheet provided by Complainant indicates that he/she is seeking reimbursement of electricity billings going back to June 28, 2013. However,Complainant did not raise an issue regarding the electricity charges until April 2017. Furthermore, a review of the spreadsheet shows that Complainant is alleging that he/she used an average of 8.5 KW hours per day going back to June 28, 2013, when there is no support for this allegation and it is refuted by actual meter readings. The Association has made reasonable and good faith efforts to resolve the meter reading issue with Complainant.   In response to concerns raised by Complainant  about the accuracy of the meter readings, the Association  twice has had its meter inspected  and both times it was found to be functioning properly and reading accurately. The Association is unaware of any credible evidence that any of the meter readings have been inaccurate.During a portion of July 2017, the meter did not report data. It is believed that the power to the meter was likely disconnected during this period.As a result of the failure to receive meter readings for a number of days in July, electricity for the Apartment for the period of June 27, 2017 to July 25, 2017, was charged based on an averaging of electricity usage over the previous three months.Claim for $785.34 for the Cost of Installing a Separate Meter.Complainant is seeking payment of $785.34  as reimbursement for his/her costs in hiring an electrician to install a separate meter.This claim is denied. Not only is the Association not responsible for this cost, but the separate meter was installed without Board approval.When Complainant first raised questions about the [redacted] meter readings, the Association offered, at its expense,to retain [redacted] to install a temporary meter in the Apartment to confirm the accuracy of its meter readings. Complainant declined this offer. Instead,
Complainant purchased a meter and hired an electrician to install it in the Apartment. Complainant is
responsible for the expense associated with the purchase and installation of the meter.Claim for Reimbursement of Attorneys' Fees of $1,696.Complainant is making a claim for $1,696 which Complainant states represents the amount that he/she has incurred in attorneys' fees. This claim is denied. Complainant's decision to hire an attorney to advise Complainant was his/her own decision. The Association is not liable for those fees.In summary,the Association has not overcharged Complainant for electricity charges and it is not liable to Complainant for the cost of the [redacted] meter that Complainant installed in the Apartment
or for the attorneys' fees that he/she incurred in seeking legaladvice. Complainant's claims lack merit and are therefore denied.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because again the AOAO of the Pearl "Number Two" thru it's attorney [redacted] has chosen not to address the issue.Sincerely,
[redacted]