Fox Management Group's new past-due total: $81.21!
Tomorrow it'll be $82.02, then no additional fee until Tuesday, Sept. 2nd, since I don't bill for non-business days, and it's the Labor Day "3-day weekend".
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Still no payment from Fox Management Group (Real #5)
Fox Management's new past-due total $80.41! I wish they'd pay their bills.
Finally received the assessment billing. No false "late fees". No additional charges.
Curiously, did NOT receive the minutes from the Board meeting on Aug. 6th. Will enquire of other residents (or owners) if they did, and if I can copy theirs.
Finally received the assessment billing. No false "late fees". No additional charges.
Curiously, did NOT receive the minutes from the Board meeting on Aug. 6th. Will enquire of other residents (or owners) if they did, and if I can copy theirs.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
I committed a "Fox"
From the Dictionary of Claremont:
A "Fox" (noun) is an accounting error. Based on the fact that Fox has made several obvious accounting mistakes in recent billing.
Now that we've covered that...
As I said, I committed a Fox.
In trying to be nice to Fox Management, I did two things I normally don't do in billing.
a) I gave them three weeks (specifically fifteen business days, not counting holidays or weekends), not my usual two calendar weeks (fourteen days).
b) I specifically-stated that the late fee would be applied only to "business days". Again, not counting weekends or holidays.
So my previous calculations don't apply to Saturday & Sunday (and will not apply to Labor Day). They DO apply to Monday & Tuesday. So, as of today, Fox Management is in arrears to the total of $79.61!
My bad...
Still no assessment invoice or Board minutes as of Monday's post. We've sent payment (w/Delivery Confirmation, of course) in order for it to be there before Sept. 1st.
A "Fox" (noun) is an accounting error. Based on the fact that Fox has made several obvious accounting mistakes in recent billing.
Now that we've covered that...
As I said, I committed a Fox.
In trying to be nice to Fox Management, I did two things I normally don't do in billing.
a) I gave them three weeks (specifically fifteen business days, not counting holidays or weekends), not my usual two calendar weeks (fourteen days).
b) I specifically-stated that the late fee would be applied only to "business days". Again, not counting weekends or holidays.
So my previous calculations don't apply to Saturday & Sunday (and will not apply to Labor Day). They DO apply to Monday & Tuesday. So, as of today, Fox Management is in arrears to the total of $79.61!
My bad...
Still no assessment invoice or Board minutes as of Monday's post. We've sent payment (w/Delivery Confirmation, of course) in order for it to be there before Sept. 1st.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Kommissar Krengelis violates her own rules..
Caught Kommissar Krengelis with a basket of laundry coming out of the '60 laundry room about 11am.
Not a big deal except for the fact that she claims that the residents are not supposed to use laundry rooms of buildings they are not residents of. (She's a resident of '58, not '60 and by her own rules shouldn't be using the '60 laundry room.)
Guess, like the Kremlin, she believes one set of rules applies to the Party, another to the Proletariat!
It's good to hold the moral high ground... ;-)
Not a big deal except for the fact that she claims that the residents are not supposed to use laundry rooms of buildings they are not residents of. (She's a resident of '58, not '60 and by her own rules shouldn't be using the '60 laundry room.)
Guess, like the Kremlin, she believes one set of rules applies to the Party, another to the Proletariat!
It's good to hold the moral high ground... ;-)
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Still no payment from Fox Management Group (4&5)
As regards the money I'm owed by Fox for services rendered...$78.82 due as of Saturday. $79.61 as of Sunday.
It's curious that no mail has arrived from Fox Management Group.
Besides the assessment notice, we're eagerly awaiting the minutes from the Board meeting I unfortunately missed.
Makes you wonder what went on...
On the other hand, their failure to send an assessment bill is also worrysome.
What if they voted a special assessment, due on Sept. 1st?
Fox had tried a what appears to be a stunt similar to the one credit card companies have done; charging a late fee even though the previous payment had arrived on time. If the payee doesn't question it, it's gravy for them. If the payee can prove there's no reason for the late charge, they retract the charge.
Luckily, we send everything to Fox with Delivery Confirmation so Post Office records show when things arrive! (...and it's deductible as a business expense!) Fox, of course, had to retract the late charge and apologize...
More to come...
It's curious that no mail has arrived from Fox Management Group.
Besides the assessment notice, we're eagerly awaiting the minutes from the Board meeting I unfortunately missed.
Makes you wonder what went on...
On the other hand, their failure to send an assessment bill is also worrysome.
What if they voted a special assessment, due on Sept. 1st?
Fox had tried a what appears to be a stunt similar to the one credit card companies have done; charging a late fee even though the previous payment had arrived on time. If the payee doesn't question it, it's gravy for them. If the payee can prove there's no reason for the late charge, they retract the charge.
Luckily, we send everything to Fox with Delivery Confirmation so Post Office records show when things arrive! (...and it's deductible as a business expense!) Fox, of course, had to retract the late charge and apologize...
More to come...
Friday, August 22, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Still nothing (in any sense) from Fox Management Group
Mail came...
No assessment invoice.
No Board meeting minutes.
No payment for my services rendered.
Due from Fox Management Group as of today; $77.27 Due tomorrow: $78.04.
Curously, Mara apparently was here, at the building, on the evening of the 19th.
(Unless someone else has a brand-new humongous SUV with a FOX-XX [number redacted, but I presume it's the year she was born, not her age] license plate.)
Didn't stop by to say "hi" or drop off payment. Wonder why?
No assessment invoice.
No Board meeting minutes.
No payment for my services rendered.
Due from Fox Management Group as of today; $77.27 Due tomorrow: $78.04.
Curously, Mara apparently was here, at the building, on the evening of the 19th.
(Unless someone else has a brand-new humongous SUV with a FOX-XX [number redacted, but I presume it's the year she was born, not her age] license plate.)
Didn't stop by to say "hi" or drop off payment. Wonder why?
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Still no payment from Fox Management Group (1)
Normally, my wife receives the monthly assessment (which we carefully review for mistakes) on the 20th. Plus, if there was a Board meeting, we'd get the heavily-censored minutes.
Neither item, nor payment from Fox Management for my bill, were in the mail.
Day 2 of non-payment by Fox. Today's amount was $76.51 + $.76= $77.27 if payment isn't received tomorrow!
Neither item, nor payment from Fox Management for my bill, were in the mail.
Day 2 of non-payment by Fox. Today's amount was $76.51 + $.76= $77.27 if payment isn't received tomorrow!
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Turnabout IS Fair Play...
If you've followed the recent Fox Management/BBB thread, you know that Mara Feldman-Fox is now charging us (and only us) $75 per hour for a service (information requests) that previously did not incur a fee for time expended.
She did so without advance notice as to allow the consumer (us) to avoid the fee by not utilizing the service (which, in fact, is her intention)!
Taking a page from her book, I billed Fox Management Group for concierge services/assistance I performed (as requested by Fox's representatives/contracted vendors) on site at the condo, at the same $75 per hour rate.
I had previously done so for free. But, the same principle she believes applies to her, applies to me.
Payment for the bill was due today, August 19th, 2008.
Mara, of course, had the option of challenging the bill, by contacting me by mail, e-mail or phone. (She did not offer my wife or me the same option with her bill, which legally she had to do! In fact, she listed the bill, which was paid within 30 days, as being "31-60 days overdue"!)
Mara did not respond or challenge the bill. (And even if she had, any legal argument against my charging a fee would apply equally to her!)
And now, she has not paid the bill!
The mail has come, and Mara's payment for my services rendered is not among the envelopes!
The bill has a 1% cumulative daily late charge. That means that each day the bill isn't paid, 1% of the previous day's total is charged. (Hey, BlockBuster Video legally charged a 50% daily late fee, so my 1% fee is quite reasonable, and payday loans [legal in this state] easily exceed the rate.)
So, as of today, Aug. 19th, Fox Management Group owes me, not $75, but $75.75!
Tomorrow, if the bill isn't paid, it'll be $76.51 ($75.75 + $0.76) and so-on-and-so-forth, until it is paid...
I'll keep a running total on this blog, posted daily.
She did so without advance notice as to allow the consumer (us) to avoid the fee by not utilizing the service (which, in fact, is her intention)!
Taking a page from her book, I billed Fox Management Group for concierge services/assistance I performed (as requested by Fox's representatives/contracted vendors) on site at the condo, at the same $75 per hour rate.
I had previously done so for free. But, the same principle she believes applies to her, applies to me.
Payment for the bill was due today, August 19th, 2008.
Mara, of course, had the option of challenging the bill, by contacting me by mail, e-mail or phone. (She did not offer my wife or me the same option with her bill, which legally she had to do! In fact, she listed the bill, which was paid within 30 days, as being "31-60 days overdue"!)
Mara did not respond or challenge the bill. (And even if she had, any legal argument against my charging a fee would apply equally to her!)
And now, she has not paid the bill!
The mail has come, and Mara's payment for my services rendered is not among the envelopes!
The bill has a 1% cumulative daily late charge. That means that each day the bill isn't paid, 1% of the previous day's total is charged. (Hey, BlockBuster Video legally charged a 50% daily late fee, so my 1% fee is quite reasonable, and payday loans [legal in this state] easily exceed the rate.)
So, as of today, Aug. 19th, Fox Management Group owes me, not $75, but $75.75!
Tomorrow, if the bill isn't paid, it'll be $76.51 ($75.75 + $0.76) and so-on-and-so-forth, until it is paid...
I'll keep a running total on this blog, posted daily.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Problems between Fox Management Group and ANOTHER client!
Surfing the net and came across this...
There's another group (whom I previously mentioned) with apparent ongoing problems with Fox Management Group!
Just had to share this with you...
Burr Oaks & Fox Management
You can't make things like this up!
PLUS: MORE unfavorable reviews about Fox Management, this time on Yahoo!
There's another group (whom I previously mentioned) with apparent ongoing problems with Fox Management Group!
Just had to share this with you...
Burr Oaks & Fox Management
You can't make things like this up!
PLUS: MORE unfavorable reviews about Fox Management, this time on Yahoo!
Ed, Edward, & Eddie...
To give you an idea of the limited mindset I'm dealing with at Fox Management...
From: foxmanagement@hotmail.com
To: B
B,
Please stop using the name Eddie, Ed Foss uses the name Ed.
I am sure if you were called Bri or Red you would find it offensive.
As is all walks of life, please treat others as you would like to be treated.
Thank you,
Mara
From: B
To: foxmanagement@hotmail.com
Mara:
My wife, my family, and my friends do call me "Bri"!
Since seeing Beowulf, several of them now call me "Wiglaf" (That's a pop-culture in-joke. You probably won't get it. Ask your kids.)
And, at my recent gig, several co-workers called me "Red" (actually "Red B"), since there was also a "B" in the same office, and the two names obviously sound the same. (The other B was called "Big B", since he was even bigger and heavier than me!)
"Eddie" is a friendly version of "Ed" or "Edward" (both rather formal-sounding).
Friendly people use diminutives and nicknames.
Why you're uncomfortable with them is a matter for speculation.
Curious, that you take offense at my attempt to be friendly.
Judith Marrs has no apparent problem with "Judy".
Either way, if "Foss" has a problem with it, he should tell me.
Respectfully,
B
Apparently befuddled that anyone would address others in a friendly manner, Mara responds...
From: foxmanagement@hotmail.com
To: B
B,
Maybe before you use a nickname, you should ask the person if it offesive (sic) to them. I named my children particular names, although there may be common nicknames for them. I expect and demand that they be called by their proper names.
In all the years that I have know Ed - I have never heard anyone call him "Eddie" therefore I can not imagine that it is an attempt to be friendly or just merely annoying. Just my thoughts at large - enough on this issue.
Mara
She doesn't seem to even know how to use spellcheck. "Offesive"?
Mommy "expects and demands that they be called by their proper names"? Hoo Boy!
From:B
To: foxmanagement@hotmail.com
Mara:
Most creatives have no problem with nicknames.
Most non-creatives do.
Your belief that Foss would be uncomfortable with them is an interesting comment on your opinion of his character and creativity (or lack therof).
We each have our opinion on the matter, and we're both entitled to them.
You can't convince me,
I can't convince you, nor would I try.
Just my thoughts at large - enough on this issue.
B
And thus it ended...
From: foxmanagement@hotmail.com
To: B
B,
Please stop using the name Eddie, Ed Foss uses the name Ed.
I am sure if you were called Bri or Red you would find it offensive.
As is all walks of life, please treat others as you would like to be treated.
Thank you,
Mara
From: B
To: foxmanagement@hotmail.com
Mara:
My wife, my family, and my friends do call me "Bri"!
Since seeing Beowulf, several of them now call me "Wiglaf" (That's a pop-culture in-joke. You probably won't get it. Ask your kids.)
And, at my recent gig, several co-workers called me "Red" (actually "Red B"), since there was also a "B" in the same office, and the two names obviously sound the same. (The other B was called "Big B", since he was even bigger and heavier than me!)
"Eddie" is a friendly version of "Ed" or "Edward" (both rather formal-sounding).
Friendly people use diminutives and nicknames.
Why you're uncomfortable with them is a matter for speculation.
Curious, that you take offense at my attempt to be friendly.
Judith Marrs has no apparent problem with "Judy".
Either way, if "Foss" has a problem with it, he should tell me.
Respectfully,
B
Apparently befuddled that anyone would address others in a friendly manner, Mara responds...
From: foxmanagement@hotmail.com
To: B
B,
Maybe before you use a nickname, you should ask the person if it offesive (sic) to them. I named my children particular names, although there may be common nicknames for them. I expect and demand that they be called by their proper names.
In all the years that I have know Ed - I have never heard anyone call him "Eddie" therefore I can not imagine that it is an attempt to be friendly or just merely annoying. Just my thoughts at large - enough on this issue.
Mara
She doesn't seem to even know how to use spellcheck. "Offesive"?
Mommy "expects and demands that they be called by their proper names"? Hoo Boy!
From:B
To: foxmanagement@hotmail.com
Mara:
Most creatives have no problem with nicknames.
Most non-creatives do.
Your belief that Foss would be uncomfortable with them is an interesting comment on your opinion of his character and creativity (or lack therof).
We each have our opinion on the matter, and we're both entitled to them.
You can't convince me,
I can't convince you, nor would I try.
Just my thoughts at large - enough on this issue.
B
And thus it ended...
Saturday, August 16, 2008
What OTHERS have to say about Fox Managament
It's not just us...
Merchant Circle
You'll note the listing has their office address, not their PO Box.
Merchant Circle
You'll note the listing has their office address, not their PO Box.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The Better Business Bureau official file on Fox Management
Name: Fox Management Group ID: 87001918
File Open: July 2000
TOB Classification: Real Estate Services
BBB Accreditation: This company is not a BBB Accredited business.
The BBB has requested basic information from this company. The BBB has not received a response. Without this information, the BBB may not have current information concerning such things as the company's management or its nature of business.
File Open: July 2000
TOB Classification: Real Estate Services
BBB Accreditation: This company is not a BBB Accredited business.
The BBB has requested basic information from this company. The BBB has not received a response. Without this information, the BBB may not have current information concerning such things as the company's management or its nature of business.
A file was opened on them only a short time after they began operations (early 2000).
Fox Management has failed (a word that crops up with alarming frequency in relation to them) to provide information to the BBB, or to join (as most legitimate businesses do)!
Interpret as you will...
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Fox Management Group and the BBB Part 6 (94179735)
When last we left our heroine...
In an ongoing conflict with the decidedly-nasty Fox Management Group and the insidious Mara Feldman-Fox, A has gone to the Better Business Bureau to complain about Fox's poor customer service skills, specifically, her sudden billing for "time" (at $75 per hour)!
After making a potent argument and refuting Fox's irrational rant of a response (all of which are available in the previous blog entries), it appeared A was on the verge of victory!
But, strange forces are at work.
A second complaint against Fox about a totally-different matter from B, A's husband, was mysteriously combined with A's complaint! (see previous entry)
I contacted the BBB about their combining of the two totally-different complaints against the same company.
Within 24 hours, the second unrelated complaint was deleted from my complaint and assigned a case number.
Without explanation, my complaint was "administratively closed"!
On June 18th, I contacted Nicole Tooks, Assistant Manager, Financial Services whose e-mail informed me of the closure that day, asking for an explanation of the error and the reason for the closing of the case.
Ms. Tooks:
I'm curious as to why you (or one of your staff) combined two separate situations from two separate complainants (myself and my husband) against the same company into one and listed the first matter as "resolved" when neither matter was, in fact, resolved?
(Body of B's complaint. See previous blog entry for text)
Why was this done?
And how was the matter "resolved" since you hadn't received any response from Fox Management?
I'm still waiting for a response from Ms. Tooks.
Curiously, when I added this new information to the complaint database on the BBB website, it was deleted within 24 hours of posting!
How very Orwellian...
Is Big Sister watching?
In an ongoing conflict with the decidedly-nasty Fox Management Group and the insidious Mara Feldman-Fox, A has gone to the Better Business Bureau to complain about Fox's poor customer service skills, specifically, her sudden billing for "time" (at $75 per hour)!
After making a potent argument and refuting Fox's irrational rant of a response (all of which are available in the previous blog entries), it appeared A was on the verge of victory!
But, strange forces are at work.
A second complaint against Fox about a totally-different matter from B, A's husband, was mysteriously combined with A's complaint! (see previous entry)
I contacted the BBB about their combining of the two totally-different complaints against the same company.
Within 24 hours, the second unrelated complaint was deleted from my complaint and assigned a case number.
Without explanation, my complaint was "administratively closed"!
On June 18th, I contacted Nicole Tooks, Assistant Manager, Financial Services whose e-mail informed me of the closure that day, asking for an explanation of the error and the reason for the closing of the case.
Ms. Tooks:
I'm curious as to why you (or one of your staff) combined two separate situations from two separate complainants (myself and my husband) against the same company into one and listed the first matter as "resolved" when neither matter was, in fact, resolved?
(Body of B's complaint. See previous blog entry for text)
Why was this done?
And how was the matter "resolved" since you hadn't received any response from Fox Management?
I'm still waiting for a response from Ms. Tooks.
Curiously, when I added this new information to the complaint database on the BBB website, it was deleted within 24 hours of posting!
How very Orwellian...
Is Big Sister watching?
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Fox Management Group and the BBB Part 5 (94179735)
While A was pursuing this matter, B had contacted the BBB about another Fox-related matter...
"More info received from the consumer" (which was not from me on this matter.but from my husband on another totally different matter!)
I (B) requested copies of e-mails by a fellow resident sent to Fox Management and cc'ed to me...
from B
to Fox Management foxmanagement@hotmail.com,
subject: Follow-up to information request...
Just following-up on my request from October 12th (four days ago) for the following information...
Am looking into Ana Garcia's computer problems to ascertain why I did not receive the forwarded e-mails she stated she sent to you asking for a meeting regarding the posters.
Since Ana stated she intended to send them to me, and that, due to tech problems, they didn't go thru, could you please forward your copies (which would have a cc to me and my addy)?
This will tell me if it's just a mistyped e-mail address (as I suspect) or something more serious.
from Fox Management foxmanagement@hotmail.com
to B
subject: RE: Follow-up to information request...
As those are Ana's communications to the Board of Directors, please obtain them directly from Anna. If you insist on recieving (sic) them from my office, I will have to charge (as permitted by law) you for my time as it may be time consuming for me to research and forwarded them on.
from B
to Fox Management foxmanagement@hotmail.com,
subject: Re: Follow-up to information request...
As Ana Garcia stated to all attending the Board meeting, they WERE cc'd to me as well, they are NOT "privileged communications", but were INTENDED FOR ME as well as you and the Board. Thus, I AM legally entitled to see them.
In addition, with Ana's computer apparently not functioning properly, the best source for the material is Fox Managment, as you archive all communications from Unit Owners, Condo Residents, etc. and have acknowledged receipt of this particular communication in which Ms. Garcia requested an open meeting to discuss the poster matter.
To find the particular e-mail, all you would have to do is a keyword search in your mail program for "Garcia", "Poster", and probably "Foss" from Aug 2007 onward.
I want only the communications cc'd to me.
With various word combinations, it would take anyone competent no more than 15 minutes to find and forward the e-mail.
If you feel you must charge me for what most people would consider a common courtesy (and an extremely simple task at that), please do at the standard clerical rate charged by most temp agencies ($10 per hour) for such simple work. For fifteen minutes (The standard agency billing increment) or less, it should come out to $2.50 (and please enclose the invoice as an attachment to the forwarded e-mail)
I feel it is well worth the $2.50 to help Ana resolve this odd problem.
A simple forwarded e-mail (with headers intact) is all I ask for. No printout is required.
There was NO response from Fox Management.
Since Fox Management is required by law to keep all correspondence from unit owners, condo residents, etc. on file, and since Fox apparently has no record of an e-mail cc'ed to me about Ana Garcia requesting a meeting, what conclusion would you draw?
1) Mara Feldman-Fox lied in public about receiving the e-mail, and that there is NO e-mail from Ana Garcia?
2) Mara Feldman-Fox is incapable of searching her own e-mail system? (and the HotMail system is simple enough for preschoolers to use! Mara has a BA in accounting!)
3) Mara Feldman-Fox does not understand the law?
4) All of the above?
5) None of the above?
My bet's on 4!
Both my wife and I have made numerous written requests for the information each month since this e-mail thread was ended by Fox without response.
Mara Feldman-Fox has refused to provide the material giving answers ranging from a simple "No" to "the information is not available" which I take as "It doesn't exist."
Desired action: e-mail or hardcopy (with headers) of requested e-mail or written acknowledgment that it does not, in fact, exist.
Somehow this totally-separate item from B was added to the complaint I (A) had made about Fox Management!
And, as the saying goes, hilarity ensues...
Tomorrow, really and truly, The Fearsome Finale!
"More info received from the consumer" (which was not from me on this matter.but from my husband on another totally different matter!)
I (B) requested copies of e-mails by a fellow resident sent to Fox Management and cc'ed to me...
from B
to Fox Management foxmanagement@hotmail.com,
subject: Follow-up to information request...
Just following-up on my request from October 12th (four days ago) for the following information...
Am looking into Ana Garcia's computer problems to ascertain why I did not receive the forwarded e-mails she stated she sent to you asking for a meeting regarding the posters.
Since Ana stated she intended to send them to me, and that, due to tech problems, they didn't go thru, could you please forward your copies (which would have a cc to me and my addy)?
This will tell me if it's just a mistyped e-mail address (as I suspect) or something more serious.
from Fox Management foxmanagement@hotmail.com
to B
subject: RE: Follow-up to information request...
As those are Ana's communications to the Board of Directors, please obtain them directly from Anna. If you insist on recieving (sic) them from my office, I will have to charge (as permitted by law) you for my time as it may be time consuming for me to research and forwarded them on.
from B
to Fox Management foxmanagement@hotmail.com,
subject: Re: Follow-up to information request...
As Ana Garcia stated to all attending the Board meeting, they WERE cc'd to me as well, they are NOT "privileged communications", but were INTENDED FOR ME as well as you and the Board. Thus, I AM legally entitled to see them.
In addition, with Ana's computer apparently not functioning properly, the best source for the material is Fox Managment, as you archive all communications from Unit Owners, Condo Residents, etc. and have acknowledged receipt of this particular communication in which Ms. Garcia requested an open meeting to discuss the poster matter.
To find the particular e-mail, all you would have to do is a keyword search in your mail program for "Garcia", "Poster", and probably "Foss" from Aug 2007 onward.
I want only the communications cc'd to me.
With various word combinations, it would take anyone competent no more than 15 minutes to find and forward the e-mail.
If you feel you must charge me for what most people would consider a common courtesy (and an extremely simple task at that), please do at the standard clerical rate charged by most temp agencies ($10 per hour) for such simple work. For fifteen minutes (The standard agency billing increment) or less, it should come out to $2.50 (and please enclose the invoice as an attachment to the forwarded e-mail)
I feel it is well worth the $2.50 to help Ana resolve this odd problem.
A simple forwarded e-mail (with headers intact) is all I ask for. No printout is required.
There was NO response from Fox Management.
Since Fox Management is required by law to keep all correspondence from unit owners, condo residents, etc. on file, and since Fox apparently has no record of an e-mail cc'ed to me about Ana Garcia requesting a meeting, what conclusion would you draw?
1) Mara Feldman-Fox lied in public about receiving the e-mail, and that there is NO e-mail from Ana Garcia?
2) Mara Feldman-Fox is incapable of searching her own e-mail system? (and the HotMail system is simple enough for preschoolers to use! Mara has a BA in accounting!)
3) Mara Feldman-Fox does not understand the law?
4) All of the above?
5) None of the above?
My bet's on 4!
Both my wife and I have made numerous written requests for the information each month since this e-mail thread was ended by Fox without response.
Mara Feldman-Fox has refused to provide the material giving answers ranging from a simple "No" to "the information is not available" which I take as "It doesn't exist."
Desired action: e-mail or hardcopy (with headers) of requested e-mail or written acknowledgment that it does not, in fact, exist.
Somehow this totally-separate item from B was added to the complaint I (A) had made about Fox Management!
And, as the saying goes, hilarity ensues...
Tomorrow, really and truly, The Fearsome Finale!
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Fox Management Group and the BBB Part 4 (94179735)
Fox's response...
Gee, there wasn't one!
However, there are two "additional information from consumer" items from me...
On May 22nd, I received a financial statement from Fox Management listing the invoice in question (#1808, issued May 1, 2008, only 21 days ago) as being "31-60 days past due" as of May 20th, 2008!
Unless time travel is involved, I am at a loss to explain how this is possible.
A couple of possible reasons for this incredibly-incorrect financial statement come to mind...
1) Yet ANOTHER accounting error on Fox's part. They seem to be, dare I say, multiplying!
2) A punitive attempt to set up a late fee charge where NONE exists or WILL exist, since payment (under protest) for the illegal billing for "her time" is being sent before June 1, 2008, LESS than 31 days after the billing and before the normal "past due" penalty timeframe would begin! (You will note from the download I previously-sent that Fox had already tried to impose a non-existent late charge on another matter and had to withdraw it and apologize.)
and
On May 22nd, I received a financial statement from Fox Management listing the invoice in question (1808, issued May 1, 2008, only 21 days ago) as being "31-60 days past due" as of May 20th, 2008!
When I informed Fox Management of this, they responded with...
"statements are a courtesy., if you do not like the information as printed, please bring it to the Board of Directors' attention or pay the invoice promptly."
If "statements are a courtesy" (which they aren't, they're a requirement), aren't they still expected to be accurate?
We have paid the illegal charge (under protest, of course) and will contest it, first at the next Board of Directors meeting, then with legal measures, if needed.
Tomorrow: The Fearsome Finale!
Gee, there wasn't one!
However, there are two "additional information from consumer" items from me...
On May 22nd, I received a financial statement from Fox Management listing the invoice in question (#1808, issued May 1, 2008, only 21 days ago) as being "31-60 days past due" as of May 20th, 2008!
Unless time travel is involved, I am at a loss to explain how this is possible.
A couple of possible reasons for this incredibly-incorrect financial statement come to mind...
1) Yet ANOTHER accounting error on Fox's part. They seem to be, dare I say, multiplying!
2) A punitive attempt to set up a late fee charge where NONE exists or WILL exist, since payment (under protest) for the illegal billing for "her time" is being sent before June 1, 2008, LESS than 31 days after the billing and before the normal "past due" penalty timeframe would begin! (You will note from the download I previously-sent that Fox had already tried to impose a non-existent late charge on another matter and had to withdraw it and apologize.)
and
On May 22nd, I received a financial statement from Fox Management listing the invoice in question (1808, issued May 1, 2008, only 21 days ago) as being "31-60 days past due" as of May 20th, 2008!
When I informed Fox Management of this, they responded with...
"statements are a courtesy., if you do not like the information as printed, please bring it to the Board of Directors' attention or pay the invoice promptly."
If "statements are a courtesy" (which they aren't, they're a requirement), aren't they still expected to be accurate?
We have paid the illegal charge (under protest, of course) and will contest it, first at the next Board of Directors meeting, then with legal measures, if needed.
Tomorrow: The Fearsome Finale!
Friday, August 8, 2008
Fox Management Group and the BBB Part 3 (94179735)
Continuing the startling saga...
Fox's comments are in italics for easy reading.
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
"It has never been my practice, although I have the right, to bill a unit owner for special requests of documents"
She does?
At $75 per hour?
Without advance notification of a rate change after NOT charging for time on any previous request?
Where in the Condo Code is THAT?
"...it has become very time consuming."
She billed for 30 minutes! That's "time-consuming"???
"The Association's monthly management fee does not cover special requests from unit owners."
Actually, it (and the generous holiday bonus Ms. Fox received) DO cover ALL tasks REQUIRED by law, including providing information to unit owners.
"As stated in the condominium Act those special requests are billable to the unit owner. I have charged Fox Management Group's hourly rate at $75.00 plus copy costs."
Only the "copy costs" are "actual costs" allowed by law.
Ms. Fox's time is ALREADY paid for by her fee from the Board.
"The Association has a written contract that stipulates Fox Management Group's monthly fee and additional costs that are charged monthly. I reiterate, the requests are not part of the services that are provided in my contract and by law Fox Management Group has the right to charge for time and materials."
Where in the contract does it state SPECIFICALLY that providing information to unit owners as REQUIRED by law Sec. 19._RECORDS OF THE ASSOCIATION; AVAILABILITY FOR EXAMINATION._(a)(9) & Municipal code of Chicago, IL 13-72-080 is NOT part of the services provided?
You'll note she does NOT provide ANY written evidence (such as a pdf excerpt of the actual contract) to validate her statement.
"As stated in my previous e-mail, my time is valuable. There will be no retraction of this invoice. If there are additional requests, Ms. A can expect standard charges of Fox Management Group's hourly rate of $75."
Since Fox has NOT charged ANYONE ELSE at Claremont the $75 per-hour rate, her claim that it's a "standard rate" is ridiculous!
It's a punitive measure purely to discourage information requests!
Imagine, a service provider who doesn't want to provide service already paid for!
In addition, the rate for an accountant with a BS doing clerical tasks is $10-15 per hour.
Since Ms. Fox has only a BS in accounting, and this is a simple clerical task, how is her time more valuable than $10-$15 per hour?
Answer: It isn't.
And, considering the recent accounting mistake she made in billing non-existent late charges which she then had to retract and apologize for, Ms. Fox should be a bit more circumspect in her utterances.
Tomorrow: Fox responds! (or does she?)
Fox's comments are in italics for easy reading.
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
"It has never been my practice, although I have the right, to bill a unit owner for special requests of documents"
She does?
At $75 per hour?
Without advance notification of a rate change after NOT charging for time on any previous request?
Where in the Condo Code is THAT?
"...it has become very time consuming."
She billed for 30 minutes! That's "time-consuming"???
"The Association's monthly management fee does not cover special requests from unit owners."
Actually, it (and the generous holiday bonus Ms. Fox received) DO cover ALL tasks REQUIRED by law, including providing information to unit owners.
"As stated in the condominium Act those special requests are billable to the unit owner. I have charged Fox Management Group's hourly rate at $75.00 plus copy costs."
Only the "copy costs" are "actual costs" allowed by law.
Ms. Fox's time is ALREADY paid for by her fee from the Board.
"The Association has a written contract that stipulates Fox Management Group's monthly fee and additional costs that are charged monthly. I reiterate, the requests are not part of the services that are provided in my contract and by law Fox Management Group has the right to charge for time and materials."
Where in the contract does it state SPECIFICALLY that providing information to unit owners as REQUIRED by law Sec. 19._RECORDS OF THE ASSOCIATION; AVAILABILITY FOR EXAMINATION._(a)(9) & Municipal code of Chicago, IL 13-72-080 is NOT part of the services provided?
You'll note she does NOT provide ANY written evidence (such as a pdf excerpt of the actual contract) to validate her statement.
"As stated in my previous e-mail, my time is valuable. There will be no retraction of this invoice. If there are additional requests, Ms. A can expect standard charges of Fox Management Group's hourly rate of $75."
Since Fox has NOT charged ANYONE ELSE at Claremont the $75 per-hour rate, her claim that it's a "standard rate" is ridiculous!
It's a punitive measure purely to discourage information requests!
Imagine, a service provider who doesn't want to provide service already paid for!
In addition, the rate for an accountant with a BS doing clerical tasks is $10-15 per hour.
Since Ms. Fox has only a BS in accounting, and this is a simple clerical task, how is her time more valuable than $10-$15 per hour?
Answer: It isn't.
And, considering the recent accounting mistake she made in billing non-existent late charges which she then had to retract and apologize for, Ms. Fox should be a bit more circumspect in her utterances.
Tomorrow: Fox responds! (or does she?)
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Fox Management Group and the BBB Part 2 (94179735)
The Empress Strikes Back! or Attack of the Crone!
Fox Mangagment Group is responding to complaint against Fox Management Group, as the managing agent for the Claremont Condominium Association by Ms. A, spouse of Mr. B. Claremont is governed by an elected Board of Directors, Declaration and By-Laws and the Illinois Condominium Propery Act. I as their agent act on their direction. To that end, in response to Ms. A complaints:
1. It has never been my practice, although I have the right, to bill a unit owner for special requests of documents. The Illinois Condominium Property Act, Section 19, 9, f Records of the association; availability for examination, part f specifically, provides the means to charge for the cost associated with retrieving records and making them available. The Act states in part, Section 19.9. f. " The actual cost to the association of retrieving and making requested records available for inspection and examination under this Section shall be charged by the association to the requesting member. If a member request copies of records requested under this Section, the actual costs to the association of reproducing the records shall also be charged by the association to the requesting member." Ms. A and her husband, Mr. B are constantly requesting association documents, as it is their right. I have graciously been providing information - but it has become very time consuming. The Association's monthly management fee does not cover special requests from unit owners. As stated in the condominium Act those special requests are billable to the unit owner. I have charged Fox Management Group's hourly rate at $75.00 plus copy costs.
2. As stated above, no other member of the Association has ever requested documents to the extent of Ms. A and her husband, Mr. B. The Association has a written contract that stipulates Fox Management Group's monthly fee and additional costs that are charged monthly. I reiterate, the requests are not part of the services that are provided in my contract and by law Fox Management Group has the right to charge for time and materials.
3. There will be no written apology on company letterhead. There is nothing to apologize for. I have provided the information as requested in a timely basis.
4. As stated in my previous e-mail, my time is valuable. There will be no retraction of this invoice. If there are additional requests, Ms. A can expect standard charges of Fox Management Group's hourly rate of $75.
Mara Feldman-Fox
Tomorrow: Customer rebuttal!
Fox Mangagment Group is responding to complaint against Fox Management Group, as the managing agent for the Claremont Condominium Association by Ms. A, spouse of Mr. B. Claremont is governed by an elected Board of Directors, Declaration and By-Laws and the Illinois Condominium Propery Act. I as their agent act on their direction. To that end, in response to Ms. A complaints:
1. It has never been my practice, although I have the right, to bill a unit owner for special requests of documents. The Illinois Condominium Property Act, Section 19, 9, f Records of the association; availability for examination, part f specifically, provides the means to charge for the cost associated with retrieving records and making them available. The Act states in part, Section 19.9. f. " The actual cost to the association of retrieving and making requested records available for inspection and examination under this Section shall be charged by the association to the requesting member. If a member request copies of records requested under this Section, the actual costs to the association of reproducing the records shall also be charged by the association to the requesting member." Ms. A and her husband, Mr. B are constantly requesting association documents, as it is their right. I have graciously been providing information - but it has become very time consuming. The Association's monthly management fee does not cover special requests from unit owners. As stated in the condominium Act those special requests are billable to the unit owner. I have charged Fox Management Group's hourly rate at $75.00 plus copy costs.
2. As stated above, no other member of the Association has ever requested documents to the extent of Ms. A and her husband, Mr. B. The Association has a written contract that stipulates Fox Management Group's monthly fee and additional costs that are charged monthly. I reiterate, the requests are not part of the services that are provided in my contract and by law Fox Management Group has the right to charge for time and materials.
3. There will be no written apology on company letterhead. There is nothing to apologize for. I have provided the information as requested in a timely basis.
4. As stated in my previous e-mail, my time is valuable. There will be no retraction of this invoice. If there are additional requests, Ms. A can expect standard charges of Fox Management Group's hourly rate of $75.
Mara Feldman-Fox
Tomorrow: Customer rebuttal!
Fox Management Group and the BBB Part 1 (94179735)
Missed the Board meeting, so I didn't see or hear from Kommissar Krengelis. Will find out what happened in a week or so when the usually-censored minutes are sent with the next assessment billing.
In the meantime, here's Part 1 of a recent complaint made by A under "Customer Service Issues" to the Better Business Bureau against Fox Management Group in general and Mara Feldman-Fox in particular listed...
Case Description:
I requested, in writing, from Fox Management...
4/29/08
1) We would like a listing (Excel datasheet or chart) of gardening expenses (including payments to the gardening services vendor and supplies used by residents and reimbursed by the Condo Association for the past three calendar years. The reason is for discussion at the Board meeting in August of gardening expenses as well as cost of correcting violations of the Building Code. This request is made under...Sec. 19. _RECORDS OF THE ASSOCIATION; AVAILABILITY FOR EXAMINATION._(a)(9) & Municipal code of Chicago, IL 13-72-080. This is the second time this information has been requested in the last 180 days. We are also reserving the right to ask for copies of the actual bills.
2) We would like a listing (Excel datasheet or chart) of the monthly billing for electricity usage for the condo common areas from 2000 thru 2004 inclusive. The reason is for discussion of common area usage at the Board meeting in April. This request is made under...Sec. 19. _RECORDS OF THE ASSOCIATION; AVAILABILITY FOR EXAMINATION._(a)(9) & Municipal code of Chicago, IL 13-72-080.This is the second time this information has been requested in the last 180 days.
5/1/08, I received 5 double-sided pages of information plus...
an invoice for $30.60 (thirty dollars and sixty cents) and a letter from Mara Fox...
3) Enclosed is an invoice for copy costs and my time to accumulated (sic) requested information. Please make check payable to Claremont Condominium Association.
I had never previously been charged a fee for "time", just copying costs (about 5 cents a page).
I responded by e-mail...
I am in receipt of your letter of 5/1/08, and am puzzled.
You list "an invoice for copy costs and my time to accumulated (sic) requested information."
The "actual cost" of 5 sheets of two-sided print-out which you bill at $.60 plus the $0.41 for postage would come to an entirely-reasonable total of $1.01, which I am happy to pay.
In addition, you billed $30 on invoice #1808 for the "administrative time to accumulate documents and correspondence" without listing either the actual time spent or the per-hour rate. ($10-$15 per hour is the standard pay rate for a clerk with a BS in accounting, according to a temp agency [my employer] uses.)
Please provide the time and rate information for the $30 charged on invoice 1808, and a confirmation that others at Claremont Court Condominiums who have requested information from Fox Management have also been billed at the same rate.
If I am the first, or only one, to have these charges imposed, I am curious to know..."why?"
Mara Fox responded by e-mail...
The cost is for my time to run the reports, print them and send you a letter. My hourly rate is $75. If you do not agree with this fee, I would suggest you discuss this with your attorney.
As I have stated in the past, you have never given the Board of Directors specific reasons as to why you need this information. This is becoming a waste of my valuable time and will charge you for it accordingly.
I responded by e-mail again...
You stated that I didn't give you "specific reasons" as to why I need this information.
REASONS: (see my request above)
Your monthly fee from Claremont Court Condominiums would not enable you to do more than half a days' work per month at $75 per hour!
Thus, you are charging the Association one rate (or flat fee), and me another!
Why?
The "desired resolution" (required by the BBB) provided by me was...
1) Written explanation for suddenly charging (without advance notification) $75 per hour for a service which has previously been billed only for materials cost. (As I understand it, a company cannot change rates for established services without advance notification, to allow customers to opt out of the service to avoid paying new fees.) and how the new policy doesn't violate 605/19(9)(f). If there is such a provision (or legal interpretation allowing "billable time"), could Fox please point it out?
2) Written explanation from Fox of difference in billing between myself and literally everyone else in the condo. (No one else has been charged $75 per hour for a service which has been part of the fee paid to Fox by the Condo Board.)
3) Written apology on company letterhead.
4) Retraction of the $30.60 fee and a new invoice issued for the correct amount. (around $1.75 or less)
Tomorrow: The Empress Strikes Back! Fox counterattacks!
In the meantime, here's Part 1 of a recent complaint made by A under "Customer Service Issues" to the Better Business Bureau against Fox Management Group in general and Mara Feldman-Fox in particular listed...
Case Description:
I requested, in writing, from Fox Management...
4/29/08
1) We would like a listing (Excel datasheet or chart) of gardening expenses (including payments to the gardening services vendor and supplies used by residents and reimbursed by the Condo Association for the past three calendar years. The reason is for discussion at the Board meeting in August of gardening expenses as well as cost of correcting violations of the Building Code. This request is made under...Sec. 19. _RECORDS OF THE ASSOCIATION; AVAILABILITY FOR EXAMINATION._(a)(9) & Municipal code of Chicago, IL 13-72-080. This is the second time this information has been requested in the last 180 days. We are also reserving the right to ask for copies of the actual bills.
2) We would like a listing (Excel datasheet or chart) of the monthly billing for electricity usage for the condo common areas from 2000 thru 2004 inclusive. The reason is for discussion of common area usage at the Board meeting in April. This request is made under...Sec. 19. _RECORDS OF THE ASSOCIATION; AVAILABILITY FOR EXAMINATION._(a)(9) & Municipal code of Chicago, IL 13-72-080.This is the second time this information has been requested in the last 180 days.
5/1/08, I received 5 double-sided pages of information plus...
an invoice for $30.60 (thirty dollars and sixty cents) and a letter from Mara Fox...
3) Enclosed is an invoice for copy costs and my time to accumulated (sic) requested information. Please make check payable to Claremont Condominium Association.
I had never previously been charged a fee for "time", just copying costs (about 5 cents a page).
I responded by e-mail...
I am in receipt of your letter of 5/1/08, and am puzzled.
You list "an invoice for copy costs and my time to accumulated (sic) requested information."
The "actual cost" of 5 sheets of two-sided print-out which you bill at $.60 plus the $0.41 for postage would come to an entirely-reasonable total of $1.01, which I am happy to pay.
In addition, you billed $30 on invoice #1808 for the "administrative time to accumulate documents and correspondence" without listing either the actual time spent or the per-hour rate. ($10-$15 per hour is the standard pay rate for a clerk with a BS in accounting, according to a temp agency [my employer] uses.)
Please provide the time and rate information for the $30 charged on invoice 1808, and a confirmation that others at Claremont Court Condominiums who have requested information from Fox Management have also been billed at the same rate.
If I am the first, or only one, to have these charges imposed, I am curious to know..."why?"
Mara Fox responded by e-mail...
The cost is for my time to run the reports, print them and send you a letter. My hourly rate is $75. If you do not agree with this fee, I would suggest you discuss this with your attorney.
As I have stated in the past, you have never given the Board of Directors specific reasons as to why you need this information. This is becoming a waste of my valuable time and will charge you for it accordingly.
I responded by e-mail again...
You stated that I didn't give you "specific reasons" as to why I need this information.
REASONS: (see my request above)
Your monthly fee from Claremont Court Condominiums would not enable you to do more than half a days' work per month at $75 per hour!
Thus, you are charging the Association one rate (or flat fee), and me another!
Why?
The "desired resolution" (required by the BBB) provided by me was...
1) Written explanation for suddenly charging (without advance notification) $75 per hour for a service which has previously been billed only for materials cost. (As I understand it, a company cannot change rates for established services without advance notification, to allow customers to opt out of the service to avoid paying new fees.) and how the new policy doesn't violate 605/19(9)(f). If there is such a provision (or legal interpretation allowing "billable time"), could Fox please point it out?
2) Written explanation from Fox of difference in billing between myself and literally everyone else in the condo. (No one else has been charged $75 per hour for a service which has been part of the fee paid to Fox by the Condo Board.)
3) Written apology on company letterhead.
4) Retraction of the $30.60 fee and a new invoice issued for the correct amount. (around $1.75 or less)
Tomorrow: The Empress Strikes Back! Fox counterattacks!
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Others with Fox Management problems...
First off; I was pleased to discover others who are having problems with Fox Management Group are making their problems known to the public via the web!
Some residents of Burr Oaks Circle have set up their own website to showcase more Fox Management Group stupidity! More power to them!
Next; still no response from Kommissar Krengelis. But tonite's the Board meeting, she's sure to spout. I'll post the highlights tomorrow.
Finally; as to the Professional affiliations of Mara Feldman-Fox... (new items in red)
Community Associations Institute. Not a member at present!
National Association of Housing Cooperatives. Unconfirmed as of this date. Still have not heard back.
Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
www.acfechicago.org 815-663-7283 NOT Chicago member.
National; www.acfe.com 800-245-3321. Not a national member since 1999!
So, why does she list the membership on her current resume?
Note about "Associate" membership: Open to individuals interested in the prevention, detection, deterrence and investigation of fraud and fraud-related activities. If you are a professional interested in learning more about fighting fraud, Associate membership with the ACFE provides you with the knowledge, resources and training you need. In other words: No qualifications needed, just cash and an interest in the field!
Some residents of Burr Oaks Circle have set up their own website to showcase more Fox Management Group stupidity! More power to them!
Next; still no response from Kommissar Krengelis. But tonite's the Board meeting, she's sure to spout. I'll post the highlights tomorrow.
Finally; as to the Professional affiliations of Mara Feldman-Fox... (new items in red)
Community Associations Institute. Not a member at present!
National Association of Housing Cooperatives. Unconfirmed as of this date. Still have not heard back.
Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
www.acfechicago.org 815-663-7283 NOT Chicago member.
National; www.acfe.com 800-245-3321. Not a national member since 1999!
So, why does she list the membership on her current resume?
Note about "Associate" membership: Open to individuals interested in the prevention, detection, deterrence and investigation of fraud and fraud-related activities. If you are a professional interested in learning more about fighting fraud, Associate membership with the ACFE provides you with the knowledge, resources and training you need. In other words: No qualifications needed, just cash and an interest in the field!
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)