BBB Business Review

What is a BBB Business Review?

Consumer Complaints

BBB Accredited Business since 11/05/2010

Property Management People, Inc.

Phone: (301) 694-6900Fax: (301) 694-9514

BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

Customer Complaints Summary

4 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 1 closed in last 12 months
Complaint TypeTotal Closed Complaints
Problems with Product / Service4
Advertising / Sales Issues0
Billing / Collection Issues0
Delivery Issues0
Guarantee / Warranty Issues0
Total Closed Complaints4

Complaint Breakdown by ResolutionAbout Complaint Details

Complaint Resolution Log (4)
03/30/2015Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details

PMP is not providing the service, which I am paying for, by neglecting to enforce my neighbor's fence not being in compliance with the HOA covenants.
In October of 2014, I reached out to *********** in regard to my neighbor, *************, making partial unauthorized changes to his fence without HOA approval. **** spoke to the HOA board and sent ********** a letter asking him to bring his fence into compliance. ********** has not removed or competed the modification to his fence. I have contacted **** multiple times to get an update but he will not respond. PMP is not rendering the service that I am paying for.

Desired Settlement
I want for PMP to enforce the policy of enforcing disallowing of unauthorized modifications in regard to fences in my neighborhood. I want for PMP to inform me of when my neighbor's fence is going to be brought into compliance or the punitive measures taken to show due dilegence. Being ignored for months with no response is no way of conducting business.

Business Response
Contact Name and Title: *************
Contact Phone: ************
Contact Email: ********************
The Complainant,*******************, *********************** is a resident of the ********************************************., in ****************************. Property Management People, Inc. (PMP) is the community association management company for Gap View Village.

*********** has complained a number of times to PMP's manager,****************, about his next door neighbors, the ******** who reside at ***********************.

Our reading of the BBB Complaint filed by *********** is that he is not satisfied with the decision of the Gap View Village Board of Directors regarding the ******** fence.

The ******** application to erect a fence on their property was approved on July 23, 2009. In December of 2011 ***********'s application to build a fence (which either connects to or is situated directly beside the ******** fence) was approved. Copies of both applications were approved with virtually the same conditions.

********** presented ***********'s September 30, 2014 email complaint regarding the ******** fence to the Architectural Board of Directors in October 2014. The board's analysis of the situation is as follows:

1. ******** fence was approved and built in 2009 with the "beauty" or finished side of the fence facing inward.

2. ********* fence was approved and built in 2011 with the "beauty" or finished side of the fence facing inward.

3. After the ********* built their fence the ******** installed four (4) sections of fencing adjacent to the ********* with the beauty side facing their house so all of the fence facing the interior of their yard had the "beauty" or finished inward.

4. This left 8 to 10 sections of fence that the ******** erected that the ********* viewed from inside their property with the "unfinished" side facing their property. (see attached photographs taken by ***********)

On October 7, 2014 ********** emailed *********** stating:

"I have discussed this matter with the architectural board members and they advised that we can ask your neighbor to remove the fence modifications that he has completed or we suggest that 673 should double face the 8-10 sections of 653's fence so that way they would both have the 'good (beauty)' side facing each yard.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me."

PMP is not empowered to take further action (without authorization by the Board) on ***********'s complaint.

PMP has fulfilled our fiduciary duty to the Gap View Village Homeowners Association, and its Members. Absent Board approval, we CANNOT take further action.

PMP takes our instructions from the Association and when they decide "not" to take action we are prohibited from taking action on our own. This is not a situation that PMP can enforce without the Board's authorization.

PMP's recommendation is for *********** to request a meeting with the Gap View Village Board of Directors at their next meeting to discuss his complaint. Should the Gap View Board of Directors instruct PMP to take further action on ***********'s complaint then we will happily and promptly pursue doing so.

Copies of the respective architectural applications and photographs taken by *********** will be forwarded to BBB in a separate document.

Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Per a previous board member, the process use to be PMP works with the board, and if the neighbor does not comply, the board would authorize PMP to take action. PMP did not due their due diligence by not responding to my emails and providing instructions and basically letting the issue fall off of the table. The previous board member that I spoke to was taken back and was confounded by the lack of responsiveness and action on PMP's behalf. Unless the process has changed, PMP is deflecting. I want for PMP to send me the published process. If the published process states that I need to go to request a meeting with the board, which is redundant, I will do so, but if it does not state that, PMP needs to do their job.

Final Business Response
In an attempt to resolve this complaint PMP has called and emailed *********** requesting a meeting or return phone call. *************, CEO of PMP, left a message for *********** on March 15th. ***********, PMP Community Manager, emailed *********** on March 25th. Copy of email attached.

PMP will not enter the property of a homeowner without being invited or obtaining prior approval. At this point we are still trying to determine exactly the nature of ***********'s complaint.

When *********** and his neighbors, the *******, both built their fences, they both placed the beauty side forward. According to the ******* they too have tried to speak with *********** but he will not speak with them. See attached email.

If we knew what part of the ******** fence *********** is complaining about we would gladly approach the ******** and discuss it with them.

Contrary to ***********'s allegations ********** has replied to ***********'s emails a number of times.

Having returned from a business trip last evening from the West Coast I'm in the office today to respond to enter our response on the date due. I will gather as many of the email exchanges as I can from ********** and sumbit them tomorrow.

We remain ready and willing to assist *********** once he communicates to us the exact nature of his compliant. If *********** is complaining about the additional vertical pickets that were placed on the fence that separates his property from his neighbor's, the ********, please state so.

07/29/2014Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details

My fiance and I have embarked on a journey to find a better home for our family and to closer to his job. We applied for a townhouse with property management people close to the beginning of June. We were denied the townhouse we applied for but the management company approved us for up $1599 in rent. We received a letter in the mail and verbal confirmation of this. My fiance makes more than the rent in a week doing IT work and he rented from them before and we have great rental history with our landlord. so we thought well at least its something we can work with. We drove back and fourth looking at their properties then we finally find one that is within the budget and so I go in yesterday which was July 1, 2014 to change our application like I was told by two of their employees. I drive 45 minutes with 4 kids just for them to tell me they made a mistake on the application and we don't qualify for said amount. We are upset because we wasted time money and gas on looking for a townhouse with them because they told us we were approved for said amount and then they turn around and say we make a mistake and I fee like it was just brushed off. I do feel like they should honor what they said. I felt completely brushed off and I'm surely not satisfied with the solution of them refunding an application fee that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what we spent driving 40 miles back and fourth to look at their listed properties.

Desired Settlement
We wanted them to honor what they said we were told twice that we were approved for said amount. But they just don't really seem to care what we went through.

Business Response
PMP response to BBB Complaint Case #XXXXXXXX

July 16, 2014

Background information:

Property Management People, Inc.'s (PMP) Rental Division handles the leasing and management of approximately 450 residential rental units (single family homes, townhouses, condos and apartments) that are owned by individual investors.

When an applicant submits an application for a rental property, PMP enters the applicant's required information into ********* *********** software. ********* ******** is an independent resident screening company which uses a statistically validated scoring model that assigns a single "score" or number to indicate the degree of average risk involved in renting to a particular applicant.

In the 12 months ending June 30, 2014, PMP processed 429 rental applications. Out of the 429 applicants submitted to ********* ********* 398 applicants were accepted and 31 applicants were declined. Since we began using their services in 2001, this is the first instance where a mistake was made in notifying the applicants of the results. The decision to approve or deny an applicant is based upon pre-established criteria relating to credit strength, collection accounts, payment behavior, credit type & vintage, debt, housing costs, civil judgments, bankruptcy, Landlord-Tenant filings & evictions and verifiable income.

When an applicant is not approved for the rental price or is denied, the applicant receives a letter stating the outcome of the screening and referring them to ********* ******** if they have questions.

The following provides a timeline of events and facts related to the Complainant's application for a PMP rental property:

6/10/14 - PMP Rental Representative ***** ***** accepted applications from the Complainant and her Fiancé' (or "Complainant's partner") for **** ********** ***** *********, Maryland, a 4-bedroom, 3.5-bath townhouse with a monthly rental rate of $1,700.00. The couple was seeking a rental residence for themselves and their three (3) young children.

6/11/14 - Consistent with PMP's operating procedures the application was processed by ********* ******** and Ms. ***** received the results that day. Based on ********* ******** criteria the Complainant and her Fiancé did not qualify for **** ********** ***** They did, however, qualify for a lesser rental amount. Ms. ***** marked our internal document with the rent level for which the agency's report indicated the applicants qualified. Unbeknownst to all parties at that time, Ms. ***** misread the report results and mistakenly marked the rent level of "$1,000.00 - $1,599.00" when the rent level should have been "Up to $999.00". This is where the mistake occurred.

6/11/14 - Ms. ****** ********** PMP's property manager for **** ********** ***** notified Complainant's Fiancé via telephone that they did not qualify for the ********** property. Ms. ********** relying upon the mistaken information marked by Ms. ****** informed the Complaint's Fiancé they were approved for the rental amount of $1,599.00.

6/23/14 - PMP sent a letter to complainants confirming the above verbal notification that the complainants did not qualify for the **** ********** **** property. The letter stated they do qualify for a rental rate of up to $1,599.00 and that PMP retains applications for 60 days. The letter also invited the Complainant's to contact us if they see another PMP property within their approved rate.

7/1/14 - After calling PMP to inquire as to the availability of another PMP rental property, Complainant came to PMP's office to change her previously submitted application to **** ******** ****** a 3-bedroom, 2.5-bath townhouse at a rental rate of $1,550.00.

The ******** ***** property is managed by a different PMP management team than the ********** property. When the Complainant came to PMP's office Rental Representative **** ****** met with her.

Upon reviewing the application documents, Ms. ****** noticed that the score written on the application processing checklist did not qualify the complainant for the rent amount of $1,000 to $1,599 as the box checked indicated. This is when Ms. ******** mistake was first discovered.

The ********* ******** score qualified the applicants for a rent level up to $999.00. Ms. ****** excused herself and stated to Complainant she needed to ask a question of the property manager. Ms. ****** spoke with ****** ********* and ***** ***** and made them aware of the error.

Ms. ****** then returned to the conference room and told Complainant an error had been made and they only qualified up to $999 per month rental amount. Complainant stated she understood that mistakes can happen, thanked Ms. ****** and left.

Approximately 15 minutes later Complainant's fiancé called asking what we were going to do about it since it was our error and it wasted their time and gas. Ms. ****** told him she was not authorized to make any decisions and would have **** ****** (PMP President) call him.

Resolution action taken:

7/2/14 - Upon learning of the situation, PMP President **** ****** called Complainant's Fiancé and apologized for the mistake. Ms. ****** explained this is the first time in thousands of applications that we made a mistake. Ms. ****** told the Complainant's Fiancé that she was sorry the mistake occurred and that it unfortunately was simply human error. One of our employees checked the wrong box.

Ms. ****** told the Complainant's Fiancé PMP would refund their credit application fees of $25 per person. (NOTE: this is a departure from PMP policy, which does not allow for refunding of the application fee after a credit report has been run.) The refund checks were mailed to the complainants on July 2, 2014 along with letters stating the correct rental rate of $999.00 for which they have been approved.

PMP has accepted full responsibility for the mistake has extended verbal and written apologies to the Complainants for the error. PMP also refunded the Complainants' application fees in full.

05/12/2014Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details

Reported to PMP about a homeowner parking a car in the visitor parking space. PMP has not taken any action.
The HOA board president has been often parking her car in the visitor parking lot. On 2/17, I reported this to PMP to take some action. I was told to send a picture. I sent the picture on 2/17. To date, no action has been taken.

Desired Settlement
I would like PMP to take an action in this matter and furnish proof of that. All homeowners should be treated the same way. HOA board members should be held accountable when they violate the bylaws.

Business Response
RE: Case ********* ********** ******
April 23, 2014
Property Management People, Inc. (PMP) is the management agent for the Washingtonian Towns Homeowners Association in ************* ******** XXXXX. PMP was selected as the management agent effective March 1, 2013 and is currently the management agent for the HOA.

The Consumer's complaint states "no action has been taken" and her desired resolution is for PMP to take action and furnish proof of our actions.

Consistent with our role as the community manager for Washingtonian Towns, PMP did take appropriate action regarding this complaint. We believe the actions taken by PMP staff members were reasonable, in accordance with the HOA's governing documents and consistent with our treatment of other individuals who violate association rules.

On February 17, 2014 the Consumer, *********** ******, a resident of *** ********* ****** ************* *** reported to PMP's community manager at the time, **** ******* that the HOA Board President was parking her car in one of the Visitor Spaces in the community parking lot.

She sent an email to Mr. ****** advising the HOA Board President had been parking her vehicle in a visitor parking space for the past several weeks. She also attached a photo of the vehicle parked in the space. Below is the email: (see attached)

PMP contacted the Board President who stated she has occasionally parked her vehicle in a visitor's space but denied it was parked there continuously or repeatedly for several weeks as alleged in the complaint. The HOA President stated her son had borrowed the car several times during this time period and he could have parked in a visitor's space on multiple occasions without her knowledge.

After speaking with the HOA President and reminding her to never park her vehicle, at any time, in a visitor space, she affirmed she will speak with her son and promised no further visitor space violations will occur. Earlier today I spoke with the HOA President who stated she has not parked a vehicle in a visitor's space since she was notified.

The action taken by PMP is consistent with the Washingtonian Towns Vehicle Rules which were adopted July 1, 1996 that state:
"... the person who attached the notice (we omitted Step 1 due to the fact we knew who owned the vehicle) shall make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or operator of the vehicle to personally notify such owner/operator that the vehicle is parked in violation ..."

Mr. **** ****** was the community manager for Washingtonian Woods from March 1, 2013 until he resigned. His last day of employment with PMP was March 28, 2014.

Per the Consumer's Desired Resolution PMP did take action by contacting and addressing the issue with the HOA Board President. We concur with the Consumers comment that all homeowners should be treated fairly and equally. We routinely violate board members, homeowners, tenants and guests for not maintaining their properties in accordance with the governing documents, for architectural violations and for parking violations.

PMP's first notification from BBB that this complaint was filed was April 14, 2014 via fax. BBB was apparently sending notice of the complaint to PMP's former Human Resources Director who moved from Maryland several years ago and relocated in ********.

Should the Consumer witness future violations by the HOA President, or any resident, she may contact me directly at ********* or via my direct dial at XXX-XXXXXXX.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this complaint and we ask this complaint to be closed.

****** ** ******, CMCA, AMS, PCAM
CEO Property Management People, Inc.
Responding as Agent for Washingtonian Towns HOA

07/22/2013Problems with Product / Service

Industry Comparison| Chart

Property Management, Real Estate Rental Service, Real Estate, Association Management

As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.

BBB Business Reviews are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information in this BBB Business Review is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy.

BBB Business Reviews generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Reviews are subject to change at any time.


What is a BBB Business Review?

We offer free reviews on businesses that include background, licensing, consumer experience and other information such as governmental actions that is known to BBB. These reviews are provided for businesses that are BBB accredited and also for businesses that are not BBB accredited.


BBB Reporting Policy

As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.

BBB Business Reviews are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information in this BBB Business Review is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy.

BBB Business Reviews generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Reviews are subject to change at any time.