The CWD Group Inc AAMC®

CWD Group has responded to this claim on several occasions over the past few weeks Bellevue Towers personnel along with CWD have looked at the circumstances of the claim submission and are now working with the Board of Directors concerning this matter As the matter continues to be
under internal investigation, there is nothing more CWD can provide at this time other than to indicate it is an on-going matter that has engaged multiple parties - again this matter goes back close to three years and this has been the first indications of dissatisfaction from the owner occasioned we believe by the departure of the former building manager Thank you

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: For the record, please see attachments!
Sincerely,
*** ***Supporting Documentation Redacted by Revdex.com Staf*

Dear Sir/Madam:I was able to review their final rebuttal and I would like to submit one more piece of information to the business indicated their statements are incorrect and misleading.In attachment you can see *** *** from *** *** indicated the work will be completed as soon as the first week of November, instead of 10/as Paul mentioned in his letter.It is very sorry to know the business submitted their final rebuttal indicated they will stand for their position, and unwilling, and unable to provide the correct informationIt is also came into a disappointment that with multiple contact with CWD Group, they are still unwilling to cooperate with the homeowner, especially they already knew their homeowner will become homeless very shortly, but they still want to put their fire stopping work as their first priority, instead of the water damage repair work.Again, the homeowner DO NOT want to have the fire stopping work prior to the water damage repair work, as this would prevent the homeowner return to his home as soon as possible.Sincerely,*** **

The business was sent an email thread between myself and the manager from three years ago for reviewThe email thread represents a complete record of my interaction with the manager regarding this issue.A mere promise to incompletely resolve the complaint is insufficientThe complaint cannot be closed as resolved until:1. The defaming message is removed and a picture of the same computer screen is sent to me via email showing that the message is no longer there.2. The manager (person who wrote the defaming message) writes a sincere letter of apology for writing his offending messageIt is not enough to just remove itI can’t have someone defame me, broadcast his defamatory message via a website for three years, cause me a long lasting distress and try to hide the issue by simply removing the messageIf I did not catch it, the message would have stayed there forever as it is marked as “permanent”.The building management cannot maintain websites in order to retaliate and defame condo owners for any reasonWe did not purchase a condo in *** *** and pay high assessment fees for the management to poorly perform their duties, retaliate when we complain, defame and damage our reputation.Please respond to this Revdex.com complaint only after you have fully resolved the complaint

Unfortunately the consumer is incorrect in her assumptions An A/C unit that serves only one unit is the total responsibility of that owner for movement, removal and reinstallation even when work is done within a common area as it belongs to her and not the association We are certain
this was communicated to her The issue she brings up with construction has nothing to do with the management of the association nor the responsibilities she has as the owner of the unit CWD Group as the management company did not write the governing documents by which she agreed to follow - we communicate a message on behalf of a board of directors Given the nature of the situation there will not be a reimbursement offered to this unit owner

We have reviewed the response from the complainant and will continue to stand behind the protocols established by the condominiuim and its board regarding repairs and access to units within the building during this massive defect restoration. The Board of Directors understands the inconveniences some of this work creates for members of the association and in the case of the complainant, all necessary appropropriate steps were taken throughout the issues he describes. While we understand that he has the right to refute and allow the response to remain a part of "public record", the essence of this situation is dictated first by approvals from the board and all appropriate protocols have been followed. We all had recognized the inconveniences such a massive project would have on the community but feel all was handled in an appropriate and professional manner. Thank you

CWD Group works at the direction of the Board of Directors along with the Governing Documents for the community At no time does CWD Group make a decision on behalf of the Association Such comes via the Board of Directors All owners were advised of their personal responsibility via emails approved by the Board and accordingly the complainant has no basis to make this claim While she may think the Association should have wrapped costs for movement of the A/C units into the project, they clearly are the responsibility of every single owner Accordingly, while the Complainant may wish to receive a refund it is the position of the Board of Directors that each owner be responsible - not the Association Clearly the complainant believes that CWD Group sets policy For the record and this response - we do not We follow the directives of the board who supported the communications provided to all owners regarding this project Thank you

We will take the necessary steps to have the note removed and have referred the matter to the management team for further discussion and possible action

Below is our manager's response concerning the complaint filed.
I assume this was submitted by *** ***She is the neighbor of *** ** and they were both affected by the same water lossHere is what happenedThe water loss occurred on the evening of September where water was
backing up in unit *** kitchen sinkThe loss resulted in damage to *** (*** ***) and *** (*** **)*** *** was dispatched to address the water remediation and they set up fans and heaters in *** to address the residual moistureThe floors would need to come up in both units and the kitchen cabinets would need to be removed and re-installed to tend to the party wall between the unitsWe postponed the removal work until we were able to secure quotes to restore both unitsWe asked *** Construction to bid the work since they had experience with *** and they are doing the construction defect remediationThe bids were received on September and, after some questions and passing them by the insurance adjustor, they were approved on September *** was instructed to mobilize and work with the owners to pick their floors and restore the unitsHowever, at the same time, the Board was interested in also completing the remediation work in both units seeing as the kitchen walls would already be opened upIt was a prime opportunity to get the project done in those units while the residents were moved out so they would not have to be affected laterIt made no sense to repair walls that would be opened again in months*** Group (construction managers) and *** decided to move forward with the remediation work in both units and they took on communication with the owner from then onAlso, prior to that, the owner asked us to wait to remove the flooring and cabinets until her tenant was out of the area from 10/- 10/We honored that request and scheduled the flooring removal for 10/In the meantime, *** was trying to get the owner to choose their flooringThe owner was not available to meet in person and the materials could not be ordered until the owner made a choiceThat caused some delaysThe materials then needed to be ordered or located locallyWe asked *** and *** *** to stay in touch with the owner to inform her of the schedules for the remediation and water loss repairsI found *** communication was lacking through the process and was surprised that their “remediation crew” and “water loss” crews were not communicating with one anotherI was recently prompted by the owner to ask *** for an update, since she was not getting a response from their project managerI responded and *** made contact with her very quicklyI believe the complaint was lodged shortly after thatMy opinion is that *** *** is largely at fault for the complaint being filed

Revdex.com, If the text below does not format properly or the entire response does not go through due to a character limit, please correct it manually as in the attached PDF or WORD documents. Thank you.June 29th, 2017TO:  Revdex.com.RE:  Rebuttal of The CWD Group responses to my complaints filed against them.I filed two complaints: one for defamation/retaliation, and one for mismanaging our windows damage claim.  The business responded incorrectly to both complaints under the windows damage complaint.  I provide my responses below each of their statements.  I. DEFAMATION/RETALIATION COMPLAINT1.  Business wrote: “CWD Group has inspected the message referenced in the complaint and find nothing defamatory contained within, rather, an advisory to staff to note how to properly enter the unit in question.  **The notice on the unit account was occasioned by a first anonymous email sent to building staff that was properly responded to at each level of email received from complainant well over three years ago.” FALSE.  The message was written in retaliation to a valid complaint.  It is defamatory, malicious and highly offensive to me.The offending message states:“Anonymous emails. Threatening and demanding regarding security concerns”.The message sends a false message and is highly offensive to me.  It servers no other purpose than to retaliate against me for bringing forth security flaws.  I asked many times to remove it.My messages were neither anonymous nor threatening.  Evidence was provided.  The manager had never responded to the questions in my emails.  He dismissed my complaint at each attempt.2.  Business wrote: “The advisory noted is a private, internal building system that is used by staff only and is not part of the internet’s wider access and in no way is public.”   FALSE.  The "advisory" is written as a warning and is available to all association and building employees, including the concierge, the police and other authorized agencies to review.  The "advisory" is a false warning and serves no other purpose than to retaliate, cause a distress to the homeowner, and to publicly and deliberately smear my character to everyone who reads it.  It is highly offensive to me.  I demand that the message is removed.3.  Business wrote: “[redacted] was on the cusp of, and has subsequently completed in the last three years, a security enhancement that had addressed the initial concerns of the complainant and spent approximately $200K to achieve these results. The complainant wished security to be enhanced within the building.  Such as been completed. “ FALSE.  The building let the thefts continue for 7 years.  I complained about the punch code access system right after we bought our condo 3 years ago.  The building was not "on the cusp" on changing it.  They retaliated against me for complaining and waited 2 more years until many more thefts occurred to do exactly what I had suggested.  The improvements were implemented just 1 year ago, not 3 years ago as the business claims.  The $200K of CONDO FUNDS that was OVERSPENT is enormous and opens another issues of wasting our money.  For that amount not much has been done.  Only the code should have been disabled.  The key-fob system had already been in place.  The building replaced the entire system wasting building funds instead of just disabling the punch in code. II. MISMANAGING OUR WINDOWS DAMAGE CLAIM COMPLAINT4.  Business wrote: “A detailed window inspection and reporting process was undertaken to address scratching of unit glass.  Access to complainant unit was not provided, however similar adjacent units were inspected by a reputable architectural/engineering firm with results provided to the board for any further action, if any.  Due to the nature of the window issue, association hired counsel to represent building interests and to assist a facilitated conclusion to the event…The complainant wishes resolution to a window scratching matter, yet failed to allow access for full inspection by a reputable firm…three years ago.  Full investigation had been completed on the matter.”FALSE.  The business is doing everything they can to dismiss our damage claim.  They called it a "concern" instead of "damage".  Access to the unit was provided.  The damage has been very well documented with scratch locations and very detailed pictures.  All documentation was forwarded to the consulting firm. CWD Group defended the contractor, that they hired, when they caused damage to our unit.  The windows were inspected once.  CWD Group provided us with zero days’ notice for the second inspection.  We were not available that day.  We provided all documentation with detailed images to the consulting group instead and invited them for inspection on a different day.  The building manager (J.D) sent us an email confirmation that he forwarded it to the consulting firm as well.  The building project manager (a different person) wrote to us that they would contact us if they need it.  The [redacted] Management has NEVER followed up.  Evidence was provided.  We did not close or authorize anyone to close our damage claim. The building has no right to close it on our behalf without notifying us.  The CWD GROUP mismanaged our damage claim. 5.  Business wrote: “In response to the complaints, the building manager completes his tenure at [redacted] this Friday and has elected to take employment elsewhere.  While his departure was not occasioned by the complaints that were filed, management has taken the time to investigate to be able to appropriately respond to the Revdex.com.”  FALSE.  The business did not resolve any of the two complaints.  They wrote untrue responses in an attempt to cover up their wrongdoing.6.  Business wrote: “The complainant requests a letter of apology.  No such letter will be forthcoming as there is nothing to apologize for or remove from a needed building asset there for the benefit of all residents.”    The CWD GROUP and its employees seem to forget that we, through our condo assessment fees, pay for their services and salaries.  We expect that they are professional, courteous, and represent our interests.  Instead, they retaliate against us when we complain, refuse to enact remedies when it is the right thing to do, and ignore us.  7. Business wrote: “CWD Group believe we have fully responded in a proper, specific fashion concerning the three complaints brought to your attention.  CWD Group’s business model is based on a delivery of outstanding customer service which we provide on a daily basis.  Receiving complaints from well over 36 months ago, wherein the basis for such have no relevance today, result in the responses we have provided above.” FALSE.  CWD Group did not resolve any of our complaints. They dismissed all complaints, misrepresented us, and retaliated against us because we complained about their unprofessionalism.  They maintain websites where they defame, retaliate and offend homeowners.Regards,[redacted] Resident

The business continues to not answer our questions.  In their response, the business made numerous false and misleading statements that portray us, the complainant, as not credible in front of Revdex.com, the board of directors, and the association employees, opening-up an entirely new issue of defamation.  We demand that the business provides evidence to support their claims.  Absent of such evidence, the business is required to correct their false statements with every party they misinformed and write us a letter of apology.Our reply is provided under each business' response:Question 1. WE ASKED:  What is the result of the investigation by the consulting company regarding our windows' damage claim? BUSINESS:  “A detailed report by the consultant firm engaged by the association was developed several years ago and provided both to the board of directors and the complainant.”OUR REPLY:  We have never received this report as the business FALSELY claims. We asked for it in this complaint. We asked for the report the building manager, building project manager, the executives of the business and those who respond to this complaint. The business continues to refuse to provide us with the report.  We would not be demanding to see it if we had it.  We demand to see the evidence that the building has already provided us with this report.  We ask that the business sends us a copy of the consultant's report regarding our windows.BUSINESS:  “There have been on going investigations at this association and it is our understanding that the complainant was made aware of the on-going nature of building envelope and glass issues affecting the building. “ OUR REPLY:  We have never been made aware of any "glass related issues" affecting the building. Question 2. WE ASKED:  Why didn't the building follow up with us either with the results of the investigation or scheduled an additional inspection if it was required? BUSINESS:   “It is our understanding from emails that were provided to us and the board that several attempts at follow up were initiated but were met with resistance requesting large lead times for access to the unit to complete such follow up inspection. “OUR REPLY:  This is ENTIRELY FALSE.  No follow up attempts were made to contact us for another inspection after their original failed attempt due to their unreasonably short notice, after weeks of silence on the issue.  The building HAD NEVER MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO FOLLOW UP OR CONTACT US ANY FURTHER regarding our windows damage claim.  WE HAD NEVER REQUESTED FOR ANY SPECIFIC LEAD TIMES TO ACCESS OUR UNIT. Expecting us to be suddenly available with one business day notice for a non-emergency access is unreasonable.  We are a private residence, not an office or a commercial entity with office hours.  We demand to see the evidence that the building attempted to contact us for a follow up inspection and the evidence that we resisted such attempts by requesting “large lead times” for access after their first failed attempt.  We want to see the evidence that the building attempted to contact us AT ALL regarding our windows damage claim after their promise to follow-up made by the project manager in his email sent on: 2014-12-23.  We demand to see the emails that the business claims it has that indicate that the building made follow up attempts.The consulting company has been visiting the building on numerous occasions investigating construction faults under the warranty claim against the developer.  The management had a lot of opportunity to ask them to inspect our windows at another date, should that have been necessary.  As previously mentioned, we provided our documentation and detailed pictures of the damage to the consulting company, independent of any physical inspection that was or was not requested. We are the ones who have struggled and continue to struggle through a great “resistance” from the business to move our damage claim forward.  We had to file numerous Revdex.com complaints to get the business to respond and complained to the Board of Directors about the business.Question 3. WE ASKED:  What is the current status of our windows' damage claim? BUSINESS:   “There continue to be multiple issues that the association is investigating…” OUR REPLY:  The business creates multiple issues in order to sidetrack, confuse and obstruct filing of our damage claim.  The business had nearly three years to investigate and file our damage claim against the contractor. Three years was more than enough time.BUSINESS:   “.. and to our knowledge other than advising that the window washers did not cause the alleged damage..” OUR REPLY:  We conducted an independent investigation and have a determination letter from an expert with 38 years of experience in the window glass industry stating that the scratch damage was caused by the window washers.  We have provided this determination letter to the Board of Directors.  I witnessed the windows being physically scratched with my own eyes as the window washers cleaned the windows and I immediately emailed the building manager reporting the damage. They came to inspect the windows the next day.  The building manager and his assistant were defending the contractor without any investigations or research, in a breach of their fiduciary duty to represent the best interest of the homeowner.  The business is determined to defend their window washing contractor and assign the blame to the developer under warranty claim for construction defects regardless of what we had witnessed.  During the immediate inspection, the building manager argued with me and claimed that the window washers replace their dirty water with hard dirt particles as they descend to lower levels.  That is not true.  They never replace their dirty water which contains hard particles that get trapped in their sponge and drag across the glass scratching glass.  The window washers are also responsible for following the glass manufacturer guidelines during their initial window washing in order to prevent any glass manufacturing debris from attaching to their tools and scratching the glass.  All scratches old and new on the exterior window surface are their responsibility.  Due to the location of our unit on a high floor, only the window washers had access to it. The building and the association had almost three years to file the claim and recover damages that are owed to us.  Thus far, there has been no progress other than an effort to find ways to make our claim invalid or expired such as scheduling unreasonably short notice for an inspection, never following up as promised or by making make false statements that we resisted further attempts for follow up inspections as evidenced above.BUSINESS:   “..the claims overall for glass issues remain open and under investigation by the association. “OUR REPLY:  The business refers to the general warranty claim against the developer for "glass issues" as remaining open, but refuses to respond about the status of OUR windows' damage claim.  Our question about the status of our damage claim remains unanswered.We paid the business 28000 in the past 3 years in assessment fees.  They refuse to do their job and do not perform their fiduciary duty which requires the property manager to always act in the best interests of the homeowner.  The business responds in bad faith with false statements.  This sidetracks, distracts and confuses every party involved.   Bellevue Towers Resident. South Tower.

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because I would like to leave this conversation as part of the public records against the business.This is the second time of the water loss occurred in my unit, the first time Mr. Omar G[redacted], facility manager, advised me the repair should costs about $7000-$10000 and finally came back as $1600, I should realize that Omar G[redacted] has no experience with handling water loss. (This was documented with [redacted] Claim # [redacted]With regards to the concern #2: [redacted] from [redacted] also inspected the damage of my unit, he believes the entire process of the repair shouldn't takes more than 3 weeks, when Mr. G[redacted] also advised me on Sep 10, 2015, that the entire process should takes no longer than one month. With his statement I should be able to move back by Oct 11, 2015. Later on, when Mr. G[redacted] advised me that if I can approve them to work on the fire stopping work in my unit, with the water damage repair, he promised that WILL NOT delay the process of the repair. I am now disappointed that now it came back as the water damage repair has been delayed because of the fire stopping work.With regards to concern #3, Mike H[redacted], Community Association Manager, promised me multiple times that he will give me an update once available, but he never do so since Oct 7, 2015, when Mr. G[redacted] advised me on Sep 10, 2015, that:"...you don't need to move out as soon as possible, but I want it to be happened in the next two days", that is the time I have moved out over night because two days later (which is Sep 13, 2015) I will be in California. It came back as the repair did not start until Sep 29, 2015. The most frustrated thing is when I asked Mr. G[redacted] on Sep 21, 2015, for the reason why it has been delayed so long that I have already moved out per his instruction but they still haven't start any repair yet, he responded that: "...I need to correct my earlier statement, I meant to say 'one month' is the turn around time of the paperwork, and I am unable to give you a timeline nor completion date..." On the same day, Mr. H[redacted] responded to my inquiry by email that: "...I expect the demolition of your flooring to begin after the adjuster has a chance to review the unit.  That would definitely necessitate you moving out of the unit.", which means he is in support of Mr. G[redacted]'s decision into asking me to move out right after the incident has been occurred.With regards to concern #4, I did copy & paste the complaint because by given the fact none of the board members, nor the facility manager response to my complaint. I have no choice other than copy & paste it to Revdex.com, asking CWD Group to response it in this channel, and leave it as part of the public records. Based on these factors, I believe Omar G[redacted] did not take in any good faith into the water loss and also, he has lack of experience into this type of incident. With his lack of experience, and misleading instruction, in results of:(1) Move out DOES NOT need to be happened by Sep 13, 2015, as the insurance paper work didn't get approved until Sep 28, 2015.(2) Fire stopping work DOES delay the water damage repair work, and since it has been delayed, Mr. G[redacted]'s statement was incorrect that the fire stopping work will not delay of the water damage repair. If I would know the fire stopping work will delay the water damage repair, I wouldn't approve this type of work as this would prevent me return back home as early as possible.Sincerely,[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
A response to some claims that I disagree with or have an alternate perspective of.
Claim 1: "the owner asked us to wait to remove the flooring and cabinets until her tenant was out of the area from 10/7 - 10/10"
Response 1: CWD contacted owner on 9/29 that bid was approved and that all personal belongings needed to be removed. In addition with it working well with being out of town, ~4 business days were used to coordinate personal insurance and a moving company to remove all belongings. Minor delay, yes. But had unit been unoccupied, would [redacted] have started 10/29? Doubtful.
Claim 2:
"[redacted] was trying to get the owner to choose their flooring. The owner was not available to meet in person and the materials could not be ordered until the owner made a choice. That caused some delays. The materials then needed to be ordered or located locally."
Response 2: Flooring selection was initially communicated to CWD back on 10/5. [redacted] requested again on 10/15. Owner immediately replied. A requirement to be onsite was never communicated; [redacted] suggested we meet onsite to pick flooring, but owner responded via email instead to expedite.  No delays by owner here.
I am providing a timeline of owner’s perspective for reference.
9/8 - Initial water damage reported; notification by email and voicemail
9/17 - Construction bids received by CWD
9/29 - [redacted] adjuster approved [redacted] bid; notification that owner must remove all belongings.
9/29 – Owner informs CWD Oct 7-10 would work well
9/29 - [redacted] initiates communication about remediation work and schedule
9/29-10/2 – [redacted] schedule and project scope communications with owner
9/30 - CWD confirms Oct 7 start date "the flooring removal on the 7th and we can try to have [redacted] work on the 7th through the 9th."
9/30-10/5 – Owner-coordination with personal insurance and moving company for move-out of all unit furniture and personal belongings.
10/2 – Owner notifies [redacted] that additional remediation work was not approved
10/5 - CWD requests floor color and style
10/5 – Owner replies to CWD with flooring choice "same as [redacted]"
10/5 - CWD confirmed to notify [redacted] of flooring selection
10/6 - All personal belongings packed up
10/7 – All furniture and personal belongings moved out
10/9 - [redacted] notifies owner by email and voicemail that they are moving forward with the unapproved remediation repairs
10/12 - [redacted] notifies owner that remediation repairs will not extend water damage repairs. "The fire stop repairs will be done on Wednesday [10/14], seamlessly with the drywall [redacted] from the water damage and no additional invasive disruption to drywall "
10/15 - First [redacted] contact asking about flooring selections
10/15 - Owner replies to [redacted] with direction previously reported to CWD on 10/5
10/28 - Revdex.com complaint filed
10/28 – Owner receives water damage repair schedule by [redacted]
10/28 - Water damage repair work starts, according to schedule
11/6 - estimated completion date for water damage repairs.
I agree that a lack of communications stemming from [redacted] is a major contributor, but also agree that lack of communications from CWD were also at fault. Initial communications prior to the construction engagement of the constructions crews was acceptable, however after, owner had to initiate most updates. Owner feels that CWD did not effectively communicate expectations. Was the owner expected to project manage the construction crews to expedite work? If so, that was never communicated. Who is responsible that the project(s) are on-time with the resident’s best interest accounted for?
Sincerely,[redacted]Sincerely,

Per Revdex.com requirement, the company “The CDW Group” is referred to in this document as “The Business”.The Business has not responded to this issue, and our other Revdex.com complaints, in good faith, and has not resolved any of them. The Business has never replied to any of our rebuttals despite our providing them with evidence showing that their statements were either untrue or inaccurate.  Instead, The Business closed each Revdex.com complaint promptly without further reply.  We have recently asked the Board of Directors of Bellevue Towers for help and provided them with detailed evidence. The Board of Directors is currently investigating the situation, at our request, not because The Business voluntarily involved them.The Business states: "this has been the first indications of dissatisfaction from the owner occasioned we believe by the departure of the former building manager". We sent enough emails expressing our dissatisfaction about handling our damage claim in the first months after the damage had occurred. The emails were addressed to the manager, his assistant, the association and other company employees.  The manager and the project manager assured us that our damage claim was being handled and that they were taking the appropriate steps to resolve it.  Does The Business think that we should have been sending them emails every week to tell them that we thought that they were lying to us? We waited patiently until it came to our attention that the building manager is quitting his job, leaving our windows damage claim unresolved.The Business states: "Bellevue Towers personnel along with The CWD Group have looked at the circumstances of the claim submission."  The Business is referring to the timeline of our Revdex.com complaint submission coinciding with the departure of the building manager and is trying to hold it against us for some unknown reason. This absolutely makes no sense. Since we have begun the complaint process, The Business has been trying to use all sorts of excuses to either blame us for their own mistakes or to divert subjects of our complaints into some other irrelevant matters, such as this one.This is similar to the building manager's response when I raised concerns about building security flaws and his choice to ignore the issue. Instead of focusing on the matter that I complained about, he focused on me and retaliated against me with his defamatory note that he posted on the company website with the explicit goal to discredit and tarnish my reputation with all association employees and anyone else who has access to it.The building manager's sudden notice of departure prompted us to seek out more avenues for resolving our complaints.  We wanted to give The Business the opportunity to investigate and question the building manager before his departure. The building manager delayed the resolution of our damage claim for almost three years until he terminated his employment and the matter became no longer his concern.  We wanted to ensure that The Business was able to crosscheck our statements with the departing manager regarding the windows damage claim and the defamation/retaliation complaints. The Business and its executives cannot be excused from following-up and following-through with the ongoing issues (that they already know about), simply because the building manager that they hired no longer works for them or because a long time has passed since the claim was first reported. The damage claim is still in effect, the damage still exists and nothing has changed. The Business is liable for both the damage to our windows, mismanaging the claim and the defamation/retaliation matter.In this Revdex.com complaint, we asked The Business to provide answers to specific questions. The Business continues to refuse to respond. We, the condo owners have paid The Business over $28000 in assessment fees over a period of 3 years. We continue to pay them over $800 every month. The Business does not do their job that we pay them to do. They not only mismanaged our damage claim but also defamed me when I raised concerns about their job performance.The purpose of this complaint was to obtain a response to questions in our email that we sent to the building manager, the project manager and the company executives. We are awaiting answers to these specific questions from The Business. We asked The Business directly to provide a written response to these questions. Any separate investigations by the Board of Directors cannot be used by The Business as an excuse for not replying to our questions.  This Revdex.com complaint is not resolved until the answers are provided.The questions asked were:Given that the building manager had sent our detailed documentation and pictures of the damage to the consulting company and the project manager and had said that he would follow up with us, if needed, please respond to the following:1. What is the result of the investigation by the consulting company regarding our windows' damage claim? 2. Why didn't the building follow up with us either with the results of the investigation or scheduled an additional inspection if it was required? 3. What is the current status of our windows' damage claim?Regards, Bellevue Towers Resident. South Tower

All complaints made directly to CWD Group and to the [redacted] Board of Directors are fully investigated and responded to by taking appropriate action.  Since we are being addressed on an interaction that occurred 3 years prior to today, it is difficult to state what had occurred between...

these two individuals (at that time).  Any resident has the ability to contact CWD Group and speak to the Building Community Association Manager about concerns related to on-site staff.  In conjunction with our policies and procedures regarding disciplinary investigations the situation will be addressed.  We strongly encourage this individual and any other resident to reach out to us with concerns about past or current behavior. Residents are also welcomed to the monthly Board meeting where they can present concerns directly to the board about building practices.  The building management team works under the direction and guidance of the Board of Directors. For the resident; we can just inform this individual that we can review the information and discuss with the remaining building leaders the situation.  Jim has already given notice to the building, and the remaining 8 days, we don’t feel requires disciplinary action.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: Attached is the correspondence between Jeff D** of CWD Group Inc. and [redacted] concerning the removal of the HVAC to continue construction.  Jeff D** used the bylaws and declarations in his response.  He also highlights and uses the bylaws and declaration.  The construction bid is completely separate from any of the bylaws etc.  
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Responses to the three questions are below IN CAPS for clarity:    Paul D. G[redacted], CMCA®, AMS®, PCAM® Director of Education & Client Engagement [redacted]@cwdgroup.com  1. What is the result of the investigation by the consulting company regarding our windows' damage claim? A DETAILED REPORT BY THE CONSULTANT FIRM ENGAGED BY THE ASSOCIATION WAS DEVELOPED SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND PROVIDED BOTH TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THE COMPLAINANT.  THERE HAVE BEEN ON GOING INVESTIGATIONS AT THIS ASSOCIATION AND IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE COMPLAINANT WAS MADE AWARE OF THE ON-GOING NATURE OF BUILDING ENVELOPE AND GLASS ISSUES AFFECTING THE BUILDING.  2. Why didn't the building follow up with us either with the results of the investigation or scheduled an additional inspection if it was required? IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING FROM EMAILS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO US AND THE BOARD THAT SEVERAL ATTEMPTS AT FOLLOW UP WERE INITIATED BUT WERE MET WITH RESISTANCE REQUESTING LARGE LEAD TIMES FOR ACCESS TO THE UNIT TO COMPLETE SUCH FOLLOW UP INSPECTION.  3. What is the current status of our windows' damage claim? THERE CONTINUE TO BE MULTIPLE ISSUES THAT THE ASSOCIATION IS INVESTIGATING AND TO OUR KNOWLEDGE OTHER THAN ADVISING THAT THE WINDOW WASHERS DID NOT CAUSE THE ALLEGED DAMAGE, THE CLAIMS OVERALL FOR GLASS ISSUES REMAIN OPEN AND UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE ASSOCIATION.

In response to the complaint received, below are the facts concerning the issue with the complainant - these have been provided through the community manager, Mr. H[redacted].  Here are the facts: 1.      [redacted] settled theirconstruction defect lawsuits and the...

building-wide remediation work is startingthis week.  [redacted] is doing that work and they are startingon the top floor (13) and working their way down.  The project is expectedto take a year.  Every unit will need some demolition and repairs (especiallyto repair the fire-stopping).  This is what I am talking about when I saw“remediation” instead of “repairs.” 2.      Back in September,there was a water loss (drain back-up) that affected [redacted] anda couple units below.  The flooring in [redacted] and some of the partywall would need to come out.  [redacted] responded to the loss byinstalling fans and dehumidifiers in the units.  We opted to hold off onflooring removal until we got repair bids.  A claim was filed on themaster policy and we had two contractors bid the repair work.  The Boardapproved [redacted] to proceed with the repairs and requested we askthe owners if they wished to proceed with the remediation work now instead oflater.  Unit [redacted] agreed and [redacted] (remediation liaison) wasnotified.  The remediation work is expected to be done by Wednesday ofthis week.  Once that is done, [redacted] “insurance crew” will be able tocomplete the water loss repairs, which are and have been underway. [redacted] estimates that the repairs will be done by the end of October(flooring, drywall, cabinets, painting, clean-up), as early as 10/25.  Ijust spoke with [redacted] from [redacted] and he has been in contactwith [redacted] about the schedule. a.      There was a miscommunication between the [redacted] remediation and repair crews one day thatresulted in the repair crews being turned away, which was resolved that sameday (according to [redacted]).  The remediation work was alreadyunderway and demanding that they stop would only delay the project.  Bothcrews are now and have been working in tandem. 3.      [redacted] did file apersonal insurance claim to cover the move-out of his personal items and hotelstay.  He did move-out of the unit prior to the flooring removal and heclaims that the Facility Manager asked him to move out sooner than what mayhave been necessary.  I have not investigated that claim, though I suspectOmar simply told him that he would need to move out due to the loss and theowner may have misinterpreted the urgency.  I plan to have a conversationwith the Facility Manager about this during our weekly meeting on Thursday. 4.      Regarding the complaint about not allowing the owner with access to his unit, [redacted] sent anote to the Board with a copy-and-paste of the Revdex.com complaint on 10/9.  Ispoke with the Facility Manager about it and here is what he said, in summary:a.      The owner arrived in the evening to check on hisunit and use the bathroom. The water had been shut-off to the unit by [redacted]as they completed the remediation work.  He went down to the desk and toldthem his toilet was not working.  The staff phoned the FM and he told themto say that he cannot touch the plumbing until [redacted] said it was safe to doso (since we didn’t know why [redacted] had shut off the water).  He said totell [redacted] that he could use the common area restrooms in the meantime. Thestaff relayed that message, but it is possible it was misinterpreted to meanthat he was not allowed to use his unit.b.     The Facility Manager wrote the owner on 10/9:“It appears that there was a miscommunication that occurred last night that I’dlike to clear up. Yes, you have access to your condo during the construction.That said; you may not turn the water back on or use the plumbing unless[redacted] deems it safe to do so…”  The owner responded: “Themessage I got last night from [redacted], as one of the concierge that: "...Ihave called [redacted] about that, he told me that because you are not allow to getinto the construction site, but he said you are more than welcome to use thecommon area of the building" If I interpret it correctly, that meansI am not suppose to be in my home, right?”  To which the FM responded:“Again; you have access to your condo but may not turn the water back on or usethe plumbing unless [redacted] deems it safe to do so.”As of today these are all the facts concerning this situation.  The manager, Facility Manager and the board have been most forthright given the situation and we are addressing as swiftly and appropriately as possible.  Please contact me directly should additional information be required.  Thank you very much.Paul ** G[redacted]Director of Education and Client EngagementCWD Group, Inc.

Revdex.com:
One final update, unless there is another response from the business  that warrants a reply. 
The construction work that was basis for opening this complaint has been completed. If you wouldn't mind changing the status from 'needs resolution' to a 'share with others' type of status, I would appreciate it. or, let me know if I should do anything else. Thanks for your assistance, you have been most responsive. 
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]The current manager has not left the company yet. He is still at his office and is paid by our assessment fee dues. I am asking the business to contact the current manager to resolve this. I have all email communications with the manager retained as evidence. The fact that his defamatory note has remained in the company system for three years makes it even worse as it has been seen by many people during that time. The manager has entered his defamatory and retaliatory note secretly and the existence of it has not been known to me until recently.   Evidence of email interactions is available and none of it is lost or expired as the business suggests. There were no off-the-record communications with the manager via phone or in person.