What follows is a summary of communications between a homeowner and Chandler Creek Homeowner Association. It's purpose is to evaluate the HOA's professionalism demonstrated towards the homeowner and to provide feedback from the homeowner regarding the satisfaction level and responsiveness of the HOA.
The homeowner is concerned that a judgement made on them by the homeowners association is unreasonable when considered in its full context. The HOA has not responded to questions and requests and has mostly ended with a non-response to each concern. It is not expected that the HOA will change it's ruling based on a summary of events that have already taken place, but we do prefer that people hear about it and know the level of service they should expect. Because this present concern is now the third regarding financial matters, a proper summary has been collected and will be made available.
Numerous emails were written to several people within the Chandler Creek HOA and associated management company, Alliance Association Management. Phone calls were made as well as in person visits to the office. Email is the preferred method of communication especially since archived emails have already saved the homeowners money.
Previous Concerns of Financial Matters
1. In January of 2010, HOA fees were due in the amount of $265.00. Money was tight for the homeowner who supported his wife and two children on a single income. A check for the HOA fees was mailed out in the middle of February, though the fees were considered late as of January 30th. A late fee was expected but no response was received from the HOA until late May of that same year. The homeowners were informed that not only had four collection fees of $15 dollars each been added but a title search had been performed (forwarding a cost of $110 to the homeowners) as well as a lien which cost the homeowners an additional $160.13. The collection fees were assessed on the 30th of each month except February which was on the 28th. The title search was performed 51 days after the amount due was first considered late. The Lien was filed 65 days after the amount due was first considered late. The homeowners were then expected to owe $636.01 which was mostly a result of the actions of the HOA and its managing company. By the time the homeowners were contacted in May, the damage had been done to the account and the new amount due for fees in 2010 was 240% more than the amount originally due. This was about $350 dollars more than should be owed by sending in a check a couple of weeks late. The day the first letter was received the homeowners immediately contacted the HOA to discuss the issue. Several days past with little resolution other than being instructed to fill out a payment plan to spread the cost out across the remainder of the year. The homeowners continued to discuss with the HOA how and why certain charges existed and why they were not informed earlier, but little response was provided. A few days after first being notified of the HOA's accounting error, the homeowner was released from his job, still supporting a stay at home mom with two small children. This new information was brought to the attention of the HOA to, at minimum, have the collection fees removed as the other costs had already been mistakenly incurred. No fees were removed, no leniency whatsoever. The homeowners were forced to sign a payment plan as that was the only way to stop a continuous amount of fees from being charged and who knows how far the HOA would have gone for a measly 0.0024% of the homes value. The homeowners were understandably outraged by the actions and decisions of the HOA.
2. In February of 2012, a letter was received indicating a $25 fee had been charged due to a violation indicating the yard required mowing. Immediately upon receiving the letter about the fine, the HOA was contacted by the homeowners to request an explanation for the situation. The homeowners explained that it had been raining all during the weekend previous to the violation date, and that the homeowners had mowed the weekend previous to that and planned to mow the weekend after. The homeowners were unable to mow during the week due to work schedule and watching kids. The homeowners mow during the weekends, every weekend, unless there is some reasonable explanation for why the yard could not be mowed that weekend (such as being out of town, raining all weekend, etc.) This situation was explained to the HOA and the initial response received was "we are unable to waive the fine at this time". The homeowners had not received notification of the fine being imposed previous to receiving the letter that the fine had been charged. The HOA informed the homeowners that "contacting the HOA after a fine has been assessed is too late." The homeowners did not agree with this decision as they had done everything in their power to maintain the lawn and yet were simply caught after a weekend that had significant rainfall. The homeowners informed the HOA that they would like to make a public complaint, and so they did. A posting was made to the Chandler Creek HOA Facebook page. Facebook of course being a public and social platform protected by the First Amendment, a community tool which connects people. A perfect place for a public message. Within minutes of posting, the homeowners were contacted by phone by the HOA and were asked to remove the Facebook post. The following day the HOA changed their mind and waived the fine based on the circumstance. The HOA also stated that the violations would be reset, but if a subsequent violation was reported within a specific time period another $25 fine would be assessed.
Current Concern of Financial Matters
3. In June the homeowners received a letter in the mail indicating a $50 fine had been assessed. Again, the HOA was immediately contacted asking how this was possible. After the events in February the homeowners felt obligated to recruit a landscaper that could mow on the weekdays as the homeowners schedules continued to prohibit mowing on the weekdays. A landscaper was hired by March and continues to make regular visits even to this day. The HOA was contacted with several pieces of information including dates the landscaper was contacted by text message and an offer of two testimonials by neighbors who would confirm that the lawn is in fact regularly maintained. An email originating from the HOA was forwarded back to the HOA which explained that even if another violation was imposed it would be a $25 charge instead of a $50 charge. After the HOA was reminded of their past decisions, they removed the $50 fine and dropped it to a $25 fine. However, the situation surrounding the violation does not support the reasoning behind the decision. The homeowners understand that the lawn is to be maintained in order to preserve neighborhood property values as that is what is suggested by some research. However, the homeowners have gone above and beyond the requirements of the HOA by hiring a landscaper, and the lawn is always maintained. Nearby neighborhood common areas are typically of equal or worse condition in comparison. The homeowners lawn was not by any means unruly or out of control on the violation date. The HOA remains convinced that a $25 fee is needed, even though no valid notification letter has been provided to the homeowners.
Unanswered Questions and Requests
Numerous questions were asked by the homeowners to the HOA, below is a summary.
Request: Considering the mutually accepted fact that no accurate letter has been received by the homeowners for the violation in question, the homeowners have asked for a legitimate and accurate letter for their records.
Asked On: July 14th, 2012
Answer On: No response.
Answer: Ignored, no response or acknowledgement was made. It does not appear the HOA wishes to provide a valid notification letter. It has been 22 days since requesting one. Denying this request is in direct violation of Texas Property Code Title 11, Chapter 209.006
Request: Every year an annual financial report is produced on paper and made available to every homeowner. The homeowner requested pdf copies of the 2010 and 2011 annual financial reports, as that is more ecologically friendly.
Asked On: July 14th, 2012
Answer On: No response.
Answer: Ignored, no response or acknowledgement was made. It could be understood if the HOA simply referred the homeowners to the paper copies, but instead no remarks were made at all.
Request: The homeowners requested to have immediate neighbors speak on their behalf in an effort to show the HOA that maintenance was regularly performed.
Asked On: July 14th, 2012
Answer On: No response.
Answer: Ignored, no response or acknowledgement was made.
Question: The homeowner asked what the violation fees go towards in general. Simple question looking for a simple answer based on history. Examples of answers are general maintenance or special events.
Asked On: July 14th, 2012
Answer On: No response.
Answer: Ignored, no response or acknowledgement was made.
Question: Severe clerical errors were made by the HOA, so the homeowner asked what methods were put in place to remedy these errors and how could they be prevented in the future.
Asked On: July 14th, 2012
Answer On: No response.
Answer: Ignored, no response or acknowledgement was made. It concerns the homeowner that future errors could be made if no remedy is found.
Question: A curiousity was raised after speaking with neighbors. It was realized that this homeowners yard is generally comparable to all other yards around it in appearance, yet this house was the only one to receive as many violations in as short a time. The homeowners asked how this could be possible. Targeting a specific homeowner is illegal.
Asked On: July 14th, 2012
Answer On: No response.
Answer: Ignored, no response or acknowledgement was made.
Question: An article was furnished to the HOA explaining how excessive mowing could be detrimental to ones health, yet an increased amount of mowing is demanded to satisfy the HOA. The homeowner asked "At what expense is a homeowners, or landscapers, life and health in comparison to fee collection?"
Asked On: July 14th, 2012
Answer On: No response.
Answer: Ignored, no response or acknowledgement was made.
Willful Misinterpretation
In one of the messages from the HOA, one Director attempted to use the homeowners own comment against them by reinterpreting what was plainly written and twisting it to defend their own position. Emphasis has been added.
Homeowner Comment One: "Previous to March our only method of lawn care was with a busted lawnmower mowing every weekend."
Homeowner Comment Two: "Our schedules prohibited mowing on the weekdays hence we could only mow on the weekends. And we did, every weekend "
HOA Interpretation: "...that the yard was not being maintained regularly at that time due to a broken lawn mower"
The only way for the HOAs comment to not be willful misinterpretation is if they honestly expect the lawn to be mowed more than every weekend. Due to local and global environmental conditions and the direct impact of carbon monoxide produced by lawn equipment, it is unclear how this is a reasonable expectation moreso because this expectation would be required of large amounts of residences under the same management.
What was received by the homeowners from the HOA after all of the above questions and requests had been sent was an email stating "There will be no further communication from the HOA or Alliance about this particular issue."
The homeowners would like to be treated fairly, equally and professionally. What has been demonstrated by the HOA is the exact opposite.
