Omni Community Association Managers

I am sorry that Ms. was unhappy with her experience with Omni. It is accurate that we are unable to perform Design Reviews on proposed improvements until we receive verification, through normal channels, that ownership has transferred. Regrettably, we have had instances in the past in which people have sent us documents to support their assertion that they own a given property, typically in an effort to get an approval prior to the time title actually transfers, which have turned out to be false. Since only the legal owner of a property can actually obtain approvals, we do rely upon the public record to verify ownership, and on the records provided to us by the builder in the case of a new-build. I'm not sure of the origination of the comment that it could take 2 months, we generally get closing documents within 2 weeks to a month, and sometimes after only a few days. My review of this specific file does show a closing in mid-late June, records for which were received by us 30 days later, in mid-late July. The application for approval of improvement plans was dated July 30, and the approval communicated within 10 days. We do what we can to meet customers' desires for handling approval requests, but there are certain guidelines in processing them that we have to follow.

Mr. has previously expressed his dissatisfaction with the policies and procedures that have been adopted by his HOA, through its Board of Directors, and wants to blame Omni. Omni is not the decision-maker for the community, we are the manager, operating at the direction of and following instructions given by the Board. The Board has adopted what we believe are correct and reasonable methods for enforcement, and it appears that Mr. issue resides in (i) the fact that the policy does not result in immediate resolution of the items that he believes to be in violation of the rules, and (ii) the fact that the violation process primarily starts with the Association's receipt of a complaint. He either does not understand or disagrees (I don not know which) with the underlying legal reasons that the Association does not act as the "deed restriction police" and wants the HOA to be more proactive in identifying violations. However, because Ohio law does not give the HOA the power to pick-and-choose among the rules contained in the restrictions (i.e. it can't choose to enforce some rules while ignoring others), the Board, if it chose to self-identify violations, would be constrained to look for and identify every violation, no matter how small, regardless of how significant or insignificant -- therefore it has chosen to rely on a process that starts with a complaint. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. has submitted a list to Omni of violations on his neighbors' lots, and each will be put into our process for determining whether the conditions are, in fact, violations, and to determine what actions if any are appropriate. We do our best to find and take the appropriate and reasonable actions, for the benefit of the community as a whole, when dealing with people at various extremes in their perspectives on what is or is not, and what should or should not, be taking place in a community. Ultimately, the Board gives us the direction which we follow, and people who violate the deed restrictions are as likely to be as unhappy with the enforcement actions being perceived as "too strong," as those complaining are likely to be in perceiving them as "too weak." We work hard to do the "right thing" for the community as a whole.

I have reviewed our notes regarding communications with Ms., and based on her communications with us I believe that she is unhappy, in general, with conditions on and around her lot based on builder-construction items, moreso than with the operation of her HOA as managed by Omni. I note that Omni, simply as the manager (not the decision-maker for the HOA) does not have the discretion to ignore conditions on her Lot that violate the Deed Restrictions (such as a door that is painted a color that does not conform to the color palette defined by the developer, and leaving trash cans outside instead of in the garage unless screened from view). We will work with her, and have been working with her on these issues, but I believe her comment that our personnel are "rude" is more reflective of her not getting the answer she wants, than it is a comment about how she is treated when talking with our people.

Ms. was paid within 1 day (check mailed) of our receipt of her tax i.d. number, which she did not provide when she submitted her invoice. Perhaps Ms. has not worked with enough corporate payors to understand that tax i.d. numbers are necessary for payments to be made. Overall, even with the delay occasioned by not having her i.d. number, she was paid approximately 10 days after rendering services. Hardly unprofessional, we met and exceeded industry standards for the timeline for making payments to vendors.

Our phone system records incoming phone numbers and the times and durations of calls. We have no records of a voicemail call from Mr. number dating back to June, other than one that was received and responded to on the same day, within hours of the call. The voicemail e received and responded to contained Mr. statement that his lender needed documentation for a refinance. Our response included instructions for his ability to secure a copy of what he needed by logging into our online system -- his inability to "do so" was not a system problem, he had not registered an email address which is a prerequisite to logging in. We explained how he could produce a ledger once his Caliber Portal registration was complete. Additionally, we provided information on how his lender could obtain any additional documents in case the ledger did not suffice. We have received no follow-up communications from Mr. since we responded (same day) to his voicemail.

I'm sorry Ms. is unhappy with us. Our job duties include making regular inspections (essentially every-other-week), there is no correlation with the timing of any storms. We do take pictures of conditions that violate the deed restrictions, frankly because people challenge whether the conditions we observe exist or existed, and pictures are used to document what we observe. It would not surprise me that our staff offered a suggestion that there are companies that do exterior house cleaning for people who can't do the work themselves, but the remainder of the description by Ms. of the conversation does not sound accurate to me. Our notes, taken at the time of the call, do not indicate that any request was made for an extension of time to complete the needed washing of mold/algae from the side of her home; instead she called to discuss getting a payment plan in place on her account and said that she currently had her arm in a cast and would get the home cleaning done as soon as she was able. We frequently adjust "due dates" for the completion of work, and are very easy to work with. Ms. did not respond to the multiple letters that were sent before a fine was imposed, or she could have avoided the fine entirely just by communicating with us. I am noting our file again, regarding her injury, and am happy to give her until the end of August to complete the work. If her injury necessitates a longer period of time, she needs to contact us to discuss the timing.

Mrs. is exactly correct, that in entering an address into our system we punched a wrong number, and as a result, she got a letter she shouldn't have received. We've apologized to her husband, who also contacted us, and we are very grateful for their removal of their decorations in a timely manner (in late December; note, the HOA decorations were removed by mid-January, which is the enforced timeline for owners as well). While we disagree that the human factor of accidentally hitting a wrong key on a keyboard puts us in a place of being describable as "itic", or of needing to get out of the business in which we excel (but sometimes make mistakes), we do apologize that our imperfection led to such dramatic offense -- it was not our intention.

Ms. "Complaint" is not with Omni, it is with her Association, and candidly, it simply does not recite accurate facts. In 2017 and 2018 alone, she has been sent a minimum of nine (9) Statements from the Association that were physically mailed to her, and she has participated in communications exchanges involving not fewer than six (6) phone calls, and seven (7) e-mails (these numbers exclude communications that came from the Court when suit was filed to collect on the delinquency on her account, which, at the time filed in 2018, reflected unpaid charges dating back to early 2015). Her reference to Statements not including the "...total amount owed after legal fees...", is a reference to a note included on the Association's Statements, saying that owners should check with Omni before simply making payment of the 'current Statement balance', because if the account is in collection, there could be legal fees that have been charged after the date the Statement was printed.
In Ms. case, it is not surprising that between February of 2018 and October of 2018, additional charges were assessed to her seriously delinquent account. Ms. acknowledges that she did not make payment ("...True I did not pay my bill..."). In fact, her bill for 2018 included 3 years of delinquency. In February of 2018 her 2018 dues became due, but still remained unpaid, so her account was referred for legal collection and she was sent yet another letter(June, 2018), advising her that if she did not make payment promptly she would be sued and would incur in excess of $300 in legal fees. Payment was NOT made, so suit was filed in August, resulting in over $300 in additional charges being added to her account. She was offered multiple opportunities to enter into a payment plan to avoid additional charges.
She has never been asked to sign a "blank sheet of paper", she has been provided with forms to complete in which she has the opportunity to propose the terms upon which she can afford to make payments over time to resolve her long outstanding balance. The $571.04 balance (she sent in a payment for $570.00) was the balance owed at the time she received the June 2018 warning that if payment was not made before suit had to be filed, she would incur the additional charges. Her current balance is over $400, and she is correct that, until her account is paid in full or resolved through an approved payment plan, the pending lawsuit against her will not be dismissed.
While the Association regrets and is sympathetic to difficulties in Ms. life, it has an absolute legal duty to all owners in the community to collect dues from all owners. Regrettably, the "...repeated again..." behavior is Ms. repeated non-payment of her annual obligation to the community in which she owns a home. The offer and opportunity for her to enter into a payment plan to resolve her balance owed remains available, but if not accepted and formalized soon, the Association will have no choice but to take a judgment against her. We hope that won't be necessary.

Mr. is shown in our records as an owner of a home in one of our managed communities. Notes on the account reflect several conversations, beginning with a reference to a call from the previous owner from whom Mr. purchased his property in 2016. We were not advised of the title transfer until May of 2017, and it appears that the 2017 invoice for annual dues was forwarded by the Post Office to the previous owner, who, it appears, made handwritten changes to the Statement and forwarded it to Mr.. Follow-up calls took place with Mr., on May 16, 2017, as a result of which the information on the account was appropriately updated, the late fee was reversed, and a new statement was sent to Mr. showing what he owed for 2017. When the 2017 corrected balance remained unpaid more than 30 days later, a new late fee was assessed. There were no new charges added to the account in 2017, nor were any payments received. We know nothing about a money order, let alone did we tell Mr. that a money order was "applied to the wrong account." We asked Mr. to locate the money order receipt, number, or other identifying numbers, without which we certainly don't know anything about the money order and certainly can't locate it. There is no indication in the system that we received a money order at all related to this account. The $75 transfer fee had nothing to do with any money order issue, that is a fee that is always charged when title to a property changes hands. The 2018 annual assessment was invoiced in March, and remained unpaid until July, even though it was due in mid-April. So there's a late fee for 2018. We know he received the 2018 billing, because our notes reflect that he called on or about the due date, to say 2017 was already paid, which was the conversation in which we asked that if he can simply provide proof of payment, we'd be happy to make any appropriate adjustments. He not only did not provide any proof of payment for 2017, he didn't make any payment toward the 2018 dues until months later. Yes, when his account remained unpaid three months after the annual dues were invoiced, the account was referred for collection (exactly as was communicated would happen, in language printed on the late fee statement sent to him in May). Only after he received a legal warning letter did he make payment of the 2018 dues, and the unpaid 2017 dues. The legal warning letter resulted from non-payment of the 2018 dues, the fact that 2017's balance was still unpaid was incidental to the fact that Mr. incurred collection costs. If he genuinely paid the 2017 dues, all he needs to do is provide proof that he did so, and we'll make all necessary and appropriate adjustments to his account. As things stand, it appears that the real issue is that the 2018 dues, invoiced in March, due in April, and not paid until July, caused this issue. Mr. circumstances affect only him, and we do not perceive that there is any connection between those circumstances and other owners in the community moving this year. The real estate market has been very dynamic this year with many, many sales by individuals who could not sell in years past when the market (and home values) were down. Mr. has not been "conned" out of anything, our notes show clear, consistent communications about the amounts, and reasons, he owed the balance he owed to his HOA.

1. Calls are not recorded by us. The situation that was rectified in 2017 consisted of removing the late fee that was charged before we were informed that you had purchased the property. That was done, but a new late fee had to be assessed when you didn't pay the 2017 dues for more than 30 days after you were advised that the previous late fee would be removed (which it was);

. The 2016 dues were paid by the previous owner, to my understanding, before you bought the house. The 2017 beginning account balance was $0, the 2016 dues were never at issue, even in your complaint. You were never incorrectly assessed a late fee, and I've never said you were. A member of my staff agreed to remove the late fee that was charged originally in 2017 because it was clear that we were never informed that the property had sold to you, and that therefore you were unaware of the dues being due earlier in the year. Following your failure to pay the 2017 dues within 30 days (or within a year, for that matter) of when you were informed that the 2017 dues still had to be paid, a new late fee was charged;

. I Googled Omni Community Association Managers, and find per the Revdex.com that we have a "score" of 3.68 out of 5 stars, and an A+ rating, with 11 reviews (10 negative and 1 positive), and 12 complaints over 3 years. I'd ask that you do a little math with me. Omni manages 170 associations in 3 states, comprising over 35,000 homes. Those 35,000 homes represent a range of 1 to 12 billing communications each year, and 2 to 5 non-billing related interactions. Per year, per home. If we use a low average of 3 billing and 1 non-billing communication per year, that's 35,000 x 4 = 140,000 customer interactions, per year. The reporting period is 3 years, meaning 140,000 x 3 = 420,000 interactions, that have generated 10 negative reviews and 12 complaints. 420,000 interactions divided by a combined 22 negative reports = 1 reported issue per 6,363 interactions, or a complaint rate percentage of 5 thousandths of a percent (.00005). And if you read the negative reports, they come entirely from individuals who didn't pay their bill on time and had to pay a late fee, or who were unhappy that they broke the association's rules and were forced to come into compliance.

f your 2017 dues were paid on time, please provide proof and we will adjust your account accordingly, that's all we've ever asked for. We see no evidence that a payment was ever made on the 2017 dues until July of 2018. If we somehow handled a payment made in 2017 incorrectly on our end, we'll make adjustments if you will just show us the proof on your end that the transaction took place -- because we can't find it. With no payment in 2017, and 2018 itself also late, the additional fees that were charged to your account as part of securing payment for the HOA, are appropriate.

We regret that Mr. is unhappy, and has felt it necessary to resort to name-calling. A review of his account ledger reveals that he has not had a zero balance with the HOA since at least 2010. His significant delinquency pre-dates Omni's role as the Association's manager. At one point, his account balance (for non-payment of assessments) rose to almost $3,000. Mr. had to be sued to get him to pay what he owed, and as part of attempting to be accommodating, we authorized a 2-year payment plan to make it affordable for him, and issued a significant credit against the account to help him get current. He paid the account down to a $100 balance, in 2017, but has failed to pay either installment of the 2018 dues. As such, new legal action has been taken. Yes, the pleading form discloses that the Association may, if his balance increases before the case is resolved or judgment secured, be entitled to "up to $6,000", which is the jurisdictional limit in Small Claims Court and is pleaded as such. His actual amount owed is printed right on the face of the Complaint, and there is no statement that he is being sued for amounts he does not owe. Contrary to Mr. assertions, in February of 2017 a foreclosure case was filed against Mr. house in ***, in response to which an Answer on behalf of the Association was prepared and filed to protect the Association's interests, since he owed a balance of more than $600 at that time. Omni's duty as the Manager of the Association includes taking action to collect delinquencies. Payment in full, and on time, of HOA assessments, would have eliminated virtually all of Mr. issues.

I regret that Mr. is unhappy with our company policy, but I believe his unhappiness and description of us having a "dirty way to do business," is based more on how the policy has affected him, than the nature of the policy itself. The entire issue boils down to how we are expected to handle a situation in which an owner tells us he/she mailed a check, when the check didn't arrive. We essentially have only a limited number of options. We could simply "accept at face value" whatever statement is made and waive the late fee. We believe that the unfortunate reality is that, knowing a late fee will be waived, many people who simply did not pay on time would not be truthful about the payment having been sent and lost, just to get the waiver. However, since we have real work that has to be done in connection with tracking, accounting, mailing and otherwise communicating with owners whose payments are late, we have to be compensated for the cost of that time, which means if we are waiving everyone's late fees, our base management fee needs to increase -- additionally meaning that those people who pay in full and on time are being required to subsidize the costs of our need to deal with people who don't pay on time. We don't believe those who pay in full and on time should have to pay more to subsidize the costs of dealing with those who don't, so this option is not viable.
A second choice is to listen to the person on the phone and make a judgment call as to whether we believe the person is being truthful, and waive the fee for those we believe and not waive it for those we don't. That solution would require an extremely subjective action on our part, which would put my employees in a very difficult and uncomfortable position of having to tell some owners "I don't believe you," and which will, of course, insult those whose explanations/excuses don't sound credible. I won't put my employees or customers in that position, so this is also not a viable option.
The final choice we believe we have is to have and enforce a consistent policy, equally applied across all explanations/excuses we might receive, which is that unless we have proof that a timely payment effort was made, late fees won't be removed if payment is not timely received. Proof of a timely payment effort would come from the Post Office, typically, or bank records in the case of electronic payment efforts. And when we have such proof/evidence, we waive the fees.
We don't like having to have a policy for handling non-payment, and wish that everyone's payment arrived in full and on time. And we know that some people attempt to make payments which don't arrive on time through no fault of their own, so we've adopted what we believe to be the most reasonable method of handling it. I regret that Mr. feels differently, but I also suspect that he would be equally (if not more) upset, if we made a judgment call that he wasn't entitled to a waiver even though others might have been, or if his dues were raised simply because others in his community don't always pay on time.
I also note, that, upon reading Mr. complaint, I checked his account. It appears that two payments were made for his 2018 dues, I suspect that the check that was "lost in the mail" was ultimately located and forwarded for processing -- it arrived and was processed by the bank a couple of days ago (i.e. early March, payment was due in early February, we weren't just "saying [we] never received [his] check," it really didn't arrive during the time period all of the communications took place. If it turns out that the check matches the description that Mr. provided above in terms of timely dating/sending of that check, we'll have the proof we need, and will waive the late fee (and obviously, we'll refund the 'second' payment under any circumstances).
A few items contained in his comment need to be addressed. It is true that he could not reach Jenn, because he called during the days that she was out of the office dealing with her son's graduation from US Marine Corps boot camp, and dealing with a car accident in which her step-daughter was seriously injured and from which she may not survive. We are sorry that life circumstances affect us, too, in terms of our ability to have the exact person available at all times to respond to customer inquiries. Finally, payments are sent and processed through an automated system at a bank drop-box center in Arizona, and are not subject to getting "...misplaced at the association office."
We'll be in touch with Mr. regarding his refund shortly.

Our records do reflect that Ms. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

We sincerely regret that the information provided to us did not have an off-site mailing address for Mr.. An introductory letter was mailed to him in July of 2017, sent to the address of the home he owns in the subdivision, which did not get returned to us, nor did it generate any "forwarding" notification from the Post Office. We work very hard to verify and validate the accuracy of the addresses in our system, but did not find or receive any indication that he does not take mail at the property that is in the subdivision we manage. Mr. called our office and his record was updated to reflect his preferred address for the receipt of mail.

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 ***. In fact, in 2012 on behalf of the community we petitioned the City of *** 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. *** 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 *** qualifies for speed bumps, and installation locations were designed. However, the City of *** 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 *** (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.

The complaint regarding the appearance of the community appears to be made by an owner in one of the communities managed by Omni -- the limited amount of information provided only allows me to speculate, but I assume this to be a legitimate communication from a resident in an Omni-managed subdivision. I am investigating with my association manager, regarding whether there are circumstances in existence that could reasonably lead to a complaint/comment like the one Ms. has made. It does, sometimes occur, especially in communities in which site development and home construction are still in process, that a community does not "look its best." Sometimes that is also the case when individual home owners fail to perform maintenance or otherwise allow their individual property to look bad. Based on the directions we receive from the Board, we do communicate with both individual homeowners, and with the contractors hired by the Association, when maintenance performance does not result in acceptable appearance of the community. There is, actually, quite a bit of "accountability," we meet bi-weekly with the Board and communicate regularly with many residents in the community, and work with owners and contractors alike to address conditions. If, in fact, there are controllable conditions that need to be improved, we will take the additional actions that are necessary and appropriate to assist in upgrading appearances. However, I do note that "money paid for nothing" is an overstatement. Individual property owners pay assessments that relate to several legal obligations and association expenses that are not tied directly to the issue of what the neighborhood "looks like." Legally required insurance premiums, utility bills, taxes and the like, are all costs that do not result in physically visible benefits. That said, we will re-review conditions, and will do our best, to address any on-site shortcomings that have this owner unhappy with her neighborhood.

I am truly sorry that *** feels the way she feels, but most of her complaint arises from a lack of knowledge, or lack of understanding, about her home, subdivision and Omni's role in her homeowners' association. First, Omni does not charge homeowners at all, her Association charges her for her share of the costs of the maintenance of common areas and operating costs of amenities, including a private swimming pool. The dues amount is established by the Board of Directors of the Association, not by Omni -- Omni simply processes the paperwork to mail the dues invoices on behalf of the Association. The dues amount in the community is $330 per year for a subdivision with multiple ponds with fountains, large open space areas that have to be mowed, and a swimming pool with a pool building that sits on a 7.5 acre site the Association maintains. The pool is large enough to require (by State Law) lifeguards on site any time the pool is open, and the budget for operating and maintaining the pool is over $60,000 per year all by itself. The large open spaces the Association has to maintain costs over $70,000 to maintain. The costs are regularly bid and are reviewed and approved by the Board (not by Omni), in an effort to keep dues as low as possible. For frame of reference, Omni manages several other communities that are close in proximity to her community, and without swimming pools or other amenities have annual dues that are in the same general range of what she has been charged (she benefits from there being many homes in the community among which the costs are divided and shared).

Regarding pool passes, for many years we mailed passes, only to receive many, many complaints that people were stealing passes from the mail or that the mailings weren't arriving or were damaged by Post Office equipment in processing. Approximately 2 or 3 years ago, Omni adopted the process by which passes are hand delivered to the subdivision. We send personnel on two different days for 4 hours time frames (and do not charge extra for the service of doing so), to ensure delivery of the passes. I regret that *** is apparently one of an incredibly small percentage of the owners in the community who can't find a way within 8 hours of opportunity on 2 days, to pick up her passes. The process we adopted has resulted in the successful delivery to 98%+ of the owners in the community of their passes, with minimal inconvenience to anyone but us. The process may not be "perfect" for "everyone," but *** is in a significant minority in finding it to be "incredibly hard to retrieve" passes. The vast majority of owners picking up their passes are a joy to interact with, and happy with the process.

Relative to the violation, pictures clearly show the side of ***'s house in need of maintenance. She has not been fined, but has received letters indicating that she needs to address the maintenance need AND TO COMMUNICATE WITH US UPON DOING SO. We have no record of contact from her on this matter (she did use our Help Desk system in 2016 to facilitate our hand delivery to her of her pool passes for 2016). We document calls and have the Help Desk site available 24/7, which she has used in the past, none of which shows any communication about the violation status. If she has removed the mold/mildew stains, we are grateful and there will be no further consequence.

Finally, regarding the charges incurred in connection with her sale of her home, we have communicated directly with *** to advise her that the lender in her sale transaction is requiring us to certify documents and information to facilitate her closing. We do not do the work necessary to make her closing a success, and expose ourselves to legal liability for her benefit, without charging for those services. Candidly, this is the normal condition in today's lending environment, the aberration in this case being that we (Omni) charge significantly less for the service than virtually all other association managers (note, part of the fee charged is to a third party, not Omni, for processing the lender's requests). Far from "stealing" from her, or "looking to bleed people dry", we have undertaken to save her money to provide exceptional service. This far, we're also willing to ignore the fact that she has publicly defamed us (libel, slander) as an outgrowth of her lack of understanding. Instead, we will professionally and efficiently do what we always do -- charge less than our competition to proved great service while saving the owners in our community money. I would welcome and encourage *** to come to our office, meet the hard working individuals at Omni, and form a genuine opinion of who we are and what we do. I'm confident she'll be impressed. We certainly hope and pray for her happiness in her next home.