Complaints

This profile includes complaints for Neighborhood Association Management, Inc.'s headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

Neighborhood Association Management, Inc. has 4 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  Neighborhood Association Management, Inc.

  686 Pinnacle Place. Livermore, CA 94550

• 

  Neighborhood Association Management, Inc.

  2021 Las Positas Ct Ste 165 Livermore, CA 94551-7305

• 

  Neighborhood Association Management, Inc.

  P.O. Box 10968 Pleasanton, CA 94588

• 

  Neighborhood Association Management, Inc.

  4749 Bennett Dr. Suite B Livermore, CA 94551

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/03/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

   
  Complaint: 23554857
  
  I am rejecting this response because: 
  While I appreciate your clarification regarding NAMs operational scope, your reply fails to address critical facts regarding NAMs role in the handling of this billing error.
  
  1. NAMs Position Contradicts Prior Communications.
  In June 2025, NAM issued a formal letter to all homeowners stating that the Board, in coordination with the vendor, had thoroughly reviewed and confirmed the accuracy of the prior billing. NAM sent that letter directly to owners as part of your management responsibilities. To now claim that NAM had no role in reviewing or validating billing accuracy contradicts that prior communication, where NAM represented the Boards conclusion to residents. Whether this was a Board misjudgment or NAMs failure to challenge vendor data, the error was reinforced through NAMs communication channels.
  
  
  2. NAM Managed Homeowner Inquiries and Escalation.
  Homeowners were repeatedly told to contact EMS, who in turn referred us back to NAM. *** required NAMs coordination and approval before releasing billing information directly to owners. NAMs role as managing agent extended to facilitating billing inquiries, yet my requests for transparency were repeatedly delayed or deflected for months.
  
  
  3. Management Fees for Billing Oversight.
  While NAM now indicates it will no longer handle any aspect of water billing, the *** and its members have been paying management fees that include your handling of billing processes (even if indirect). If NAM asserts that water billing was outside your role or scope, then related charges should be discontinued immediately. Furthermore, I respectfully request that the *** be refunded for any management fees applied for NAMs coordination, billing oversight, or support during the period of this dispute.
  
  
  4. Denial of Inconvenience Compensation.
  While I understand NAMs position on denying the $350 inconvenience fee, I do not agree that NAM acted fully within scope. As a property management company, your role includes serving as liaison, supporting the *** Board, and addressing resident concernsnone of which were adequately performed. I spent months navigating a situation that should have been proactively managed by NAM.
  
  
  
  In summary:
  
  I request that NAM and the Board formally acknowledge their shared role in facilitating, approving, and communicating the incorrect billing.
  
  I again request compensation for the extensive time and effort required to resolve this matter myself.
  
  I request clarification and confirmation that NAM has ceased billing the *** for any water billingrelated services, or that a refund of such fees is being processed.
  
  
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** ***caused me over several months, I am requesting a $350 inconvenience fee to compensate for the burden of resolving a matter that NAM was responsible for managing properly in the first place.Desired Resolution:A formal written response from NAM addressing my original complaint.An explanation of what steps NAM will take to prevent similar billing issues.Payment of a $350 inconvenience fee for the time, stress, and effort required to resolve the issue without NAMs support.Accountability for NAMs lack of response throughout the process.

  Business Response

  Date: 07/14/2025

  To Whom It May Concern,

  
  Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the complaint submitted by Ms. ***** *** regarding water billing for her unit at ***********************************

  
  NAM Association Management, **** (NAM) serves as the managing agent for the Circuit Owners' Association. Our role is limited to general community management and bookkeeping services. We do not produce, calculate, or verify water usage or charges. The water billing for this community is handled entirely by Energy Management Systems (EMS), a third-party utility billing vendor selected and approved by the Associations Board of Directors.
  In this case, EMS produced the billing for the period of October 2024 through March 2025 using an incorrect rate, which resulted in overstated water charges. Once this was brought to their attentionthrough a homeowner inquiry and subsequent reviewEMS confirmed the error and issued revised billing. All homeowner accounts, including Ms. **** account, was corrected accordingly.

  
  NAM was not involved in generating or approving the original water billing calculations. We simply entered the data as provided by *** into each homeowners account ledger, as instructed by the Board. It is not within NAMs scope of work, qualifications, or responsibility to audit or validate the technical accuracy of EMSs billing rates or formulas. Expecting our office staff to independently re-calculate or detect errors in utility billingwork performed by a licensed vendorwould be like expecting a property manager to verify the engineering specifications of a roofing contractors work. This is not a reasonable or contractually expected function of our role.

  
  Furthermore, NAM did assist by engaging with *** directly once the issue was raised and worked to ensure that revised billing was issued and the matter resolved. While we understand the frustration caused by the error, we must respectfully clarify that this issue was not caused by NAM, and we acted in good faith throughout to support resolution for both the Association and its residents.

  
  As a result of the confusion and misdirected blame surrounding this situation, NAM has notified the Association that we will no longer be involved in any aspect of the water billing process going forward. *** will take over the billing process in its entirety, including issuing statements and responding directly to homeowners. A formal proposal has already been requested from *** and is pending Board approval.

  
  Resolution:
  We respectfully deny the request for a $350 inconvenience payment, as the error originated with a third-party vendor outside our control, and NAM has acted within the scope of our contract and responsibilities. However, to ensure clarity and avoid future confusion, we are transitioning all water billing responsibilities away from NAM and back to the vendor hired by the *** for that service.

  
  We hope this response provides clarity to all parties and helps close this matter.

  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/21/2025

  To Whom It May Concern,
  
  Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the complainants rebuttal. Neighborhood Association Management, Inc. (NAM) respectfully submits the following clarification to each point raised, along with reaffirmation of our position.
  
  1. Alleged Contradiction in Communications
  The complainant asserts that NAM contradicted itself by claiming no role in validating billing accuracy while previously issuing a June 2025 letter indicating that the billing had been "thoroughly reviewed" and "confirmed." This is a misinterpretation of both NAMs role and the contents of that communication.
  
  NAM's role as the management company includes disseminating official communication on behalf of the Board of Directors and approved vendors. We are responsible for ensuring messages are shared clearly and accurately, not for independently auditing or validating their content, especially when that content involves technical work completed by a licensed third party such as Energy Management Systems (EMS).
  
  The June 2025 notice specifically stated the following:
  
  "Water billing had been temporarily paused while the Board of Directors conducted a thorough review to ensure all homeowners were being billed accurately. During this time, the Board worked closely with the water submeter reading company to confirm the accuracy of the amounts that had been previously assessed."
  
  This language reflects the Boards own conclusions based on its meetings and correspondence with ***. At no point did NAM indicate that we independently reviewed or validated the billing data. Our role was solely to communicate this update to the homeowners as instructed by the Board.
  
  When new information later revealed that EMSs rate calculation had been incorrect, NAM worked promptly with *** and the Board to clarify the issue and distribute a corrected notice. While it is unfortunate that *** initially stood by its billing, NAM's responsibility is to relay Board and vendor communications. If that information is later found to be inaccurate, we take steps to obtain clarification from the appropriate party and ensure homeowners are informed. That is precisely what occurred in this situation.
  
  2. Role in Homeowner Inquiries and Escalation
  The complainant suggests that homeowner inquiries were delayed or deflected because EMS required NAMs involvement before releasing billing data. While we understand that this may have caused some frustration, this was not a result of NAM withholding access or failing to support transparency.
  
  EMS often requires that management companies coordinate the release of billing data to homeowners to ensure privacy, prevent confusion, and maintain consistency. This process is standard industry practice, not a barrier imposed by NAM.
  
  At no point did NAM refuse to respond to a homeowner or fail to provide guidance. Homeowners were consistently given the appropriate contact information for *** and advised on how to proceed. Where applicable, our team confirmed charges posted to a homeowners account. Questions involving water usage, meter readings, or rate formulas were appropriately directed to EMS, who is the party responsible for those services.
  
  NAM does not speak on behalf of *** or attempt to explain another companys calculations. Despite this, NAM played an active role in escalating concerns and coordinating with *** on behalf of the Association. It was this very process that led to the eventual correction of the billing error.
  
  3. Management Fees and Scope of Work
  The complainant argues that because NAM received management fees, it should be accountable for water billing oversight or refund those fees if this work falls outside our role. This assertion misrepresents the nature of our services.
  
  NAMs standard management fees cover general administrative tasks, including entering authorized charges into owner ledgers and processing payments. On a limited number of occasions, NAM billed the *** for specific administrative tasks related to handling EMSs billing data and issuing water billing notices at the Boards request. This work was clerical in nature and did not include validating consumption, rate calculations, or meter readings.
  
  The complainant is not a member of the Board of Directors and is therefore not in a position to determine the terms of NAMs engagement or the basis for any fees approved by the ***. Furthermore, NAM was not compensated for the considerable time spent managing the fallout of EMSs error. This work included extensive correspondence with EMS, processing corrected files, and responding to homeowner concerns, often involving multiple departments within our company over a period of weeks.
  
  Due to the confusion and misaligned expectations, NAM has formally advised the Board that we will no longer participate in any aspect of the water billing process. *** will now take full responsibility for issuing bills and responding to homeowners directly, which is both appropriate and in line with their contractual role.
  
  4. Denial of Inconvenience Compensation
  While we understand the complainants frustration, NAM must respectfully decline the request for compensation. The billing error was not made by NAM, and NAM was not in a position to verify or detect it prior to EMSs own review. Once brought to our attention, NAM acted promptly to escalate the concern, obtain clarification, and coordinate corrections with EMS and the Board.
  
  We understand that homeowners often turn to the management company as their main point of contact, but visibility does not equate to responsibility. NAM did not apply the billing rate, generate the statements, or participate in the calculation process. Our efforts were focused on resolution, and we believe they were both reasonable and professional given the circumstances.
  
  We cannot issue compensation for a mistake made by another company, particularly one hired directly by the Association for this specific function. However, steps have now been taken to prevent future confusion by transitioning full responsibility for water billing back to EMS.
  
  Conclusion
  NAM has consistently acted in accordance with our contractual responsibilities and with the best interest of the community in mind. We regret the inconvenience caused by EMSs billing error but maintain that NAM is not liable and no compensation or refund is warranted.
  
  We consider this matter closed and appreciate the opportunity to clarify our position.
  
  Sincerely,
  ****** ********
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/23/2025

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** ***