Consumer complaint received 2023-09-09
Company: Robert L. Tankel, P.A.
State: FL
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Other debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
Sub-issue: Seized or attempted to seize your property

Complaint:
On XX/XX/2023, I received a letter from XXXX XXXX Tankel of Tankel XXXX XXXX indicating an outstanding amount of {$1000.00} for HOA dues and added fees, failure to satisfy the amount in the letter would result in a lien being placed against my property. The letter was dated XX/XX/2023. 

As of XX/XX/2023, I owed {$240.00} on the account for past due HOA fees. 
In response, I immediately mailed a money order amounting to {$400.00} via certified mail to satisfy the HOA dues. Concurrently, I notified Mr. Tankel through email about the dispute over the account and my disagreement with the cited fees. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX in late charges was added to the account by Mr. Tankel 's office which contradicts the statements I received from my HOA 's property management company. 

Following this, I approached our HOA 's property management company and on XX/XX/2023, was provided with copies of available contracts. The property XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, confirmed that our HOA has NO existing contract with Tankel XXXX XXXX. Contradictorily, Mr. Tankel claims a contractual relationship and I have yet to see evidence of this alleged agreement. 

Beyond the initial sum, I have been presented with an additional {$600.00} in legal fees, segmented into {$250.00} and {$350.00} ( {$600.00} ) in legal fees, and an addition {$50.00} to the property management company. Mr. Tankels justification for these was the drafting of two distinct letters on the same day of XX/XX/2023, both a DEMAND LETTER and a RENT DEMAND LETTER. The reasoning for sending both, especially the RENT DEMAND LETTER, seems superfluous given that one of the property owners ( my sister ) resides at the given address. The subsequent explanation regarding a po box confusion further muddles the situation. Mr. Tankel stated that because we have a po box listed as a mailing address, he mailed a Rent Demand to the physical address and the owner of the property resides there.

I am appreciative that the HOA, through the management company, has chosen to waive the interest and a late fee on the account. Moreover, Mr. Tankel has agreed to reduce the legal fees by on XXXXXXXX XXXX ( {$100.00} ). However, I remain concerned about the remaining double billing for the two letters which seem redundant. Also, four separate money orders of {$80.00} dollars each has been mailed to Mr. Tankel 's office to pay the remaining HOA dues for the remainder of the year. Mr. Tankel 's fees are still in dispute. I would also like to add that it appears a payment was mailed and never received by the management company. We are researching this lost money order at this time. 

Given the above, my primary points of contention are : The validity of the legal fees and the necessity for dispatching two letters that essentially communicate the same message. 
The contradictory statements regarding the contractual relationships between our HOA and Tankel XXXX XXXX. 

I urge the CFPB to delve into the practices of Tankel XXXX XXXX to ensure fairness and transparency in their debt collection methods. I am more than willing to meet my financial obligations but expect the charges levied upon me to be legitimate and transparent.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation